Social Justice forum P.R.Thiruneelakandan, Sivamani,T.Thirumoorthi,M.Rajalakshmi vs The Chief Electroal officer — WP/14320/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010827382026

Filing Number

WP/61146/2026

Filing Date

06-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/14320/2026

Registration Date

08-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Election ( 55 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Social Justice forum P.R.Thiruneelakandan, Sivamani,T.Thirumoorthi,M.Rajalakshmi

  2. 2.R. Viswanathan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Chief Electroal officer

  2. 2.The Election commission of India

  3. 3.The union of India

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

    The Madras High Court directed the Registry to correct a typographical error in its previous order dated 15.4.2026, wherein the Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) was incorrectly marked as appearing for the third respondent instead of the first respondent. The court ordered that amended order copies reflecting the correct appearance details be issued to all parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14320/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court directed the Registry to correct a typographical error in its previous order dated 15.4.2026, wherein the Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry) was incorrectly marked as appearing for the third respondent instead of the first respondent. The court ordered that amended order copies reflecting the correct appearance details be issued to all parties. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case