Jagan Muthuraja Vs P.Manickasundaram — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Jagan Muthuraja Vs P.Manickasundaram — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None granted to the impleading petitioners; the petition was dismissed and they were not impleaded, though the Court reserved the option to hear them later if occasion demands.

Issue for consideration

Whether the three petitioners (Jagan Muthuraja, Shanmugavadivel and P.Sengottuvel), claiming to be close relatives of Thiru.Somasekaran, should be impleaded as proposed respondents 8 to 10 in H.C.P.(MD)No.915 of 2025.

Court's answer

The impleading petitioners took no part in the earlier proceedings and are not necessary parties; therefore there is no need to implead them.

Ratio / Principle

The Miscellaneous Petition (Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5008 of 2026) seeking impleading is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Because the underlying matter concerns the well-being of an individual having psychiatric issues, the petitioners may be heard later if the occasion demands, and the dismissal of this impleading petition will not stand in the way at that stage.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — G.R. Swaminathan J. and R. Poornima J., order dated 03-03-2026: Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5008 of 2026 filed in HCP(MD)No.915 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Jagan Muthuraja, Shanmugavadivel and P.Sengottuvel, who claimed to be close relatives of Thiru.Somasekaran, seeking impleading as proposed respondents 8 to 10, was DISMISSED. The Court observed that in the underlying habeas corpus matter the property rights of Thiru.Somasekaran had been seriously compromised and the properties were recovered only on account of the Court's intervention, during which the petitioners were 'nowhere in the scene'; they were accordingly held to be not necessary parties and there was no need to implead them. However, since the matter concerns the well-being of an individual having psychiatric issues, the Court stated that if the occasion demands it may hear the petitioners, and the dismissal of the impleading petition will not come in the way at that stage (obiter reservation). No precedent was cited or relied upon.

HCP(MD) NO. 915 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5008 of 2026

in

HCP(MD) NO. 915 of 2025

1.Jagan Muthuraja 2.Shanmugavadivel 3.P.Sengottuvel

Petitioner(s)

Vs 1. P. Manickasundaram S/o. Late. Palanisamy No. 5/107 Nanjai Uthukuli Erode Erode District. ... 1^st Respondent / Petitioner

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by The Superintendent of Police Karur Karur District. 3. The Inspector of Police Karur Town Police Station Karur District. 4. Nirmala W/o. Neelakandan No. 32/3 Chettipalaiyam Appipalayam Post Karur - 639 003.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Panneerselvam S/o.Late Ammaiyappan No.41 Rajaji Street Karur - 639 001. 6. S.Kesavan S/o.Sundaram Nanjai Uthukuli Erode – 638104. 7. Rajesh Ramanujam Nagar Karur 8. K.Ganesan Advocate D.No.41 Rajaji Street Karur 639001 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff For Respondent(s): Mr.Srinivasaraghavan for Ms.Kayalvizhi Janaki for R1 : Mr.M.Sakthikumar Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R2 & R3 : Mr.V.Prabhakaran Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar for R5 : Mr.V.Prabhakaran Senior Counsel for Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for R4 : Mr.V.Janaki Ramalu for R6 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General Amicus Curiae

Respondent(s)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prayer: This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to implead the petitioners as proposed respondents 8 to 10 in H.C.P.(MD)No.915 of 2025.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The petitioners herein want to get themselves impleaded. They claim that they are the close relatives of Thiru.Somasekaran.

A bare look at the record would show that the property rights of Thiru.Somasekaran had been seriously compromised. Only on account of the intervention of this Court, the properties have been recovered. The petitioners herein were nowhere in the scene. They are not

necessary parties. There is no need to implead them. This Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.

Since the matter concerns the well being of an individual having psychiatric issues, if the occasion demands, we may hear the petitioners herein. The dismissal of this impleading petition will not come in the way at that stage.

(G.R.SWAMINATHAN J.) (R.POORNIMA J.) 03-03-2026

rmi

To

The Superintendent of Police Karur Karur District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Inspector of Police Karur Town Police Station Karur District.

Nirmala W/o. Neelakandan No. 32/3 Chettipalaiyam Appipalayam Post Karur - 639 003.

A.Panneerselvam S/o.Late Ammaiyappan No.41 Rajaji Street Karur - 639 001. 5. S.Kesavan S/o.Sundaram Nanjai Uthukuli Erode - 638104.

Rajesh Ramanujam Nagar Karur 7. K.Ganesan Advocate D.No.41 Rajaji Street Karur 639001

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis