Case Law
Subject : Constitutional Law - Writ Petition
CHENNAI – The Madras High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the legality of the Tamil Nadu government's 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin Scheme', imposing a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner. The court's decision was based on a prior ruling by the Supreme Court on a connected matter.
A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan , delivered the brief order after counsel for both parties acknowledged that the apex court had already settled the issue.
The writ petition was filed by Dr. M. Sathya Kumar, who appeared as a party-in-person. The PIL contested the health scheme announced by the Tamil Nadu government through a press release dated July 27, 2025. The petitioner raised several significant legal and constitutional objections against the scheme.
Dr. Kumar's petition sought to declare the 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin Scheme' unconstitutional on multiple grounds:
Improper Naming: The petitioner argued against naming a publicly funded scheme after the incumbent Chief Minister, Mr. M.K. Stalin.
Lack of Legislative Backing: The plea contended that the scheme was implemented without proper legislative authority.
Data Privacy Violations: A central argument was that the scheme violated the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 , and the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition alleged that the collection, processing, and storage of personal and health-related data were being carried out without informed consent and a lawful data protection framework.
Constitutional Breaches: The petitioner claimed the scheme was arbitrary and illegal, violating Articles 13, 14, and 221 of the Constitution.
The plea requested the court to quash the press release, restrain the government from using the scheme's title, and order the immediate cessation of data collection, along with the permanent deletion of all data already gathered.
During the hearing, the counsel representing the parties, including Advocate-General Mr. P.S. Raman for the State, "fairly submit[ted]" that the Supreme Court had already adjudicated a connected matter on August 6, 2025, and had dismissed the writ petition before it.
Accepting this submission, the Madras High Court swiftly disposed of the present petition. In its order, the Bench stated:
"Counsel for parties fairly submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided the connected matter on 06.08.2025. The said writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, this petition is dismissed in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)."
The High Court's order effectively closes the door on this specific challenge to the 'Nalam Kaakkum Stalin Scheme' at the state level, reaffirming the binding nature of the Supreme Court's precedent. The imposition of significant costs on the petitioner also serves as a deterrent against filing litigation on issues that have already been settled by a higher judicial forum. The dismissal implies that the legal and constitutional challenges raised against the scheme did not find favour with the Supreme Court, whose reasoning now governs the matter.
#MadrasHighCourt #PublicInterestLitigation #DataPrivacy
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.