Police must consider the petitioner’s representations and pass orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

The petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 requiring the 13th respondent, the Inspector of Police, CCPS, Madurai City, to act on her representations concerning the alleged unauthorised acquisition, disclosure, transmission and circulation of her government records and documents through messaging and social-media platforms.

The petition referred to representations dated 31 January, 29 April, 9 May and 30 July 2026. The Court heard the parties and expressly declined to examine the merits of the allegations.

1. Whether the Court should direct the 13th respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s representations in accordance with law.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of mandamus.

The Court’s order applied the principle that the authority concerned may be directed to consider representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; it cited no statute or precedent and did not determine the substantive legal merits of the allegations.

The Court confined its consideration to the requested procedural relief.

Without deciding whether the alleged disclosure or circulation occurred, or what action the allegations warranted, it directed the designated police respondent to consider all four representations and make an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of, with no determination on the merits.