The Madras High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a Senior Deputy Manager (Human Resources department) of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (MTC) for having allegedly abetted the suicide of an employee by denying him leave, marking absent and initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held that regular administrative actions such as initiation of disciplinary proceedings, marking an employee absent or rejecting leave applications in the course of performance of official duty by a HR professional, such as the present petitioner K. Swarnalatha, would not amount to abetment of suicide.

Also read | Supreme Court interprets what makes the offence of ‘abetment of suicide’

The judge agreed with senior counsel N.R. Elango, assisted by Priya Annie Zachariah, that the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Chennai ought not to have booked the abetment to suicide case against the petitioner just because a Junior Engineer in MTC had died by suicide.

The prosecution brought it to the notice of the court that the deceased employee, before taking the extreme step, had sent an e-mail to the Director General of Police as well as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police naming the present petitioner and a few other MTC officials of being responsible for his death.

He had accused higher officials of harassing him and causing unbearable mental distress. However, Mr. Elango told the court the deceased employee had a history of erratic behaviour and conduct unbecoming of his official duties. His service record reflected multiple suspensions, postponed increments, numerous fines and warnings.

Further, stating that the deceased had a persistent record of unauthorised absence, the court was told that he had a long standing domestic dispute too and had written letters to various authorities including former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin on October 6, 2025 threatening to end his life

After recording the submissions, Justice Ilanthiraiyan relied upon the Supreme Court verdict in Abhinav Mohan Delkar versus State of Maharashtra (2026) wherein it was held that in cases of abetment to suicide, mens rea could not be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.

“What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test,” the top court had said.

In the present case, “there is a complete lack of proximate nexus between the actions of the accused and the unfortunate death of the employee to suggest that he was driven to suicide by the immediate actions of the management. Consequently, continuing the criminal proceedings on the strength of the FIR and the subsequent alteration report would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law,” Justice Ilanthirayan concluded.

(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (October 13, 2026), directed its Registry to call for a report from a metropolitan magistrate’s court at George Town in Chennai regarding the numbering of a complaint accusing the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin of having submitted a false election affidavit along with his nomination form filed for this year’s elections.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan wanted to know from the magistrate, by Thursday (October 15), as to how long would it take to number the petition filed by P. Milany of Theni district who was one of the contestants in Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency from where the DMK leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu got elected for the second consecutive term during the Legislative Assembly elections held this year.

The judge called for the report since Mr. Milany’s counsel told the court he had lodged the complaint against the LoP, under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 for allegedly furnishing false information in the election affidavit filed along with the nomination form, but the magistrate court was yet to entertain the petition filed on September 8.

In his plea seeking a direction to the magistrate court to expedite the process of taking his complaint on file, the petitioner said, a Division Bench of the High Court had in June this year directed the Chennai district election officer (the Greater Chennai Corporation Commissioner) to furnish to him certified copies of the accepted as well as rejected nomination papers and affidavits of Mr. Udhayanidhi.

After the receipt of those copies, the petitioner had filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the victory of the LoP from Chepauk-Thiruvallikeni constituency and simultaneously filed a petition before the metropolitan magistrate under Section 125 of the RP Act which provides for imprisonment up to six months or fine or both if the charge of filing a false election affidavit gets proved.

The petitioner said, the third metropolitan magistate’s court, designated as a special court for hearing MP/MLA cases, had in fact sought a clarification from him regarding the maintainability of the petition immediately after filing but thereafter, there was no progress and the petition was not taken on file at all though over a month had passed by since it was filed.

A habeas corpus petition (HCP) has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the preventive detention of B.T. Arasakumar (59), under the Goondas Act on the basis of a complaint accusing him of having collected around ₹100 crore from various private school managements across Tamil Nadu during the previous DMK regime.

A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan on Monday (August 10, 2026) ordered notice, returnable by four weeks, to the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police on the HCP filed by the detainee’s wife who contended no threat had been caused to public order necessitating his preventive detention.

On June 23, C. Elangovan, secretary of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Federation, had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police levelling serious charges against Arasakumar who was accused of having collected large sums of money by running an unregistered association named ‘Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association’.

According to the complainant, the detainee had collected money from private school managements by promising to offer services such as obtaining approvals for upgrading schools, gaining permanent recognition, securing building plan approvals and so on “using his proximity” with the then ruling dispensation.

He was also accused of having threatened the private school managements of dire consequences if they reveal about the transactions in public. Hence, the police had registered a First Information Report, arrested and subjected him to custodial interrogation and then invoked the Goondas Act too.

Assailing the preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police A. Amalraj on July 11, the petitioner said her husband had been taking efforts for long to get the ‘Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association’ registered but it could not be done due to existence of another association with the same name.

She claimed the complaint was the result of a civil dispute between office-bearers of different associations representing private schools in the State and it would have no bearing on maintenance of public order which alone could be a reason to invoke the Goondas Act for preventive detention.

“The detenu is aged about 59 years and has been continuously cooperating with the investigation. He is suffering from severe neck and knee pain, diabetes and hypertension and has remained in custody for a considerable period,” the petitioner said and sought interim bail too pending disposal of the HCP.