The Madras High Court dismissed a plea against the construction of a new Tamil Nadu Secretariat in Pattinapakkam

Aerial view of the site proposed by the TVK government for the new secretariat complex at Pattinapakkam (Foreshore Estate) | Photo credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu government to abandon its plan to construct a new legislative assembly complex with a secretariat on 25.55 acres of Tamilkam Lands (TNHB) at Patishore Hpaktina (Tamil Nade Hpakous Estate) in Chennai.

Supreme Court First Division Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan allowed the petitioner, RS Tamilvendan of Chennai, to withdraw the case without granting any liberty. The party took the call after the judges said the case was filed “informally” and “for the purpose of publicity” without investigating the matter and without presenting valid reasons.

What did the Bench say?

During the hearing, the chief justice asked, “How can you say this is a waste of public money? It is up to the government to build (the secretariat) wherever it wants. Please tell us what is the power of the court to order the government to construct a particular building at this or that place? Where is the power? There may be hundreds of reasons, but where is the power?”

Justice Murugan said, “You have filed a public interest litigation to stop the project. Look at your affidavit. It is only two pages long and has only two relevant paragraphs. You should have done your research, collected proper materials and explained to the court why you are challenging the government’s decision; only then can this court consider your objection. There are only two paragraphs here.”

The Division Bench also recalled that this was not the first time that a case challenging the government’s decision to shift the Legislative Assembly and Secretariat to a new location had been brought before the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the Supreme Court rejected a similar case filed about a decade ago on the grounds that courts cannot interfere with government policy decisions.

Even the Supreme Court decided categorically the same. “That’s why we ask the very first question, where do we have the authority to issue a mandamus to the government to abandon its plan?” the chief justice asked the petitioner’s counsel and said that the petitioner would have known about the previous decisions if he had done his research.

“You didn’t even try to do any research. When you come up with a public interest litigation petition, isn’t it your duty to work on it all?” Justice Murugan asked. The Chief Justice said: “Actually, cases like this call for costs. You just want publicity, that’s all.” However, the court waived the imposition of costs as the appellant’s counsel decided to withdraw the matter.

Published – 05 Oct 2026 12:58 IST