VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

S.Marimuthu, v. The Union of India,

DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
15 June 2026
Bench
S. M. Subramaniamauthor, N.Senthilkumar
Case no.
WP 32354/2019

Judgment

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) When these matters are taken up for hearing, Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that cause does not exist as of now.

¶2In view of the above submission, no further adjudication is required. Consequently, both Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 15-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AR Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J. AR To:

¶1The Joint Secretary New Delhi, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,

¶2The Director, Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶3The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Department (SC), Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

¶4The Principal Secretary to the Government. Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 15-06-2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR W.P.Nos.32354 and 34643 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.46278 of 2025 S.Marimuthu ..Petitioner -vs- 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by its Joint Secretary New Delhi. 2. The Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment Rep. by its Director, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Publim, Department (SC), Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 4. The Principal Secretary to the Government. Adi- Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 5. M.Punitha Pandian (R5 impleaded by order of this Court dated 15.06.2026) ..Respondent(s) W.P.No.34643 of 2019 S.Marimuthu ..Petitioner -vs- Page2 of 4 1. The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rep. by its Joint Secretary, New Delhi. 2. The Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Rep. by its Director, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Public, Department (SC), Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 4. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Adi- Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 5. The National Commissioner for Scheduled Caste, Rep. by its Chairman, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi - 110 003. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Declaring all the impugned Government orders in G.O.No.816 dated 25/03/1992 and G.O.(2D) No.2 dated 24/01/2007 issued by the 2nd respondent and if any other G.O. are available regarding this issue and to declare as ultra virus to the constitution of India and null and void and to naming the correct and right translation as Pattiyal Sathigal Nalathurai (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department) instead of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department in view of the Constitutional Schemes. W.P.No.34643 of 2019 Prayer: To call for the records pertaining to the impugned Letter No.2298/ Cv1/2012 dated 6.1.2014 along with the Committee Report Page3 of 4 and to quash the same as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, 1950 and consequently to direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to make correct translation in view of the Constitutional Term as SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT (PATTIYAL SATHIGAL NALATHURAI) instead of ADI DRAVIDAR AND TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT in view of the Constitutional Schemes For Petitioner: Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondent(s): Ms.P.J.Anitha CGSC FOR R1 & R2, Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R3 & R4, Mr.R.Prathaban for R5, Mr.K.Thilageswaran for R6 *****

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.