Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 Nominal Index Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2 Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3 M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Nominal Index
Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
H Vennila v. State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
V v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Bhagavathiraj v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
S Muneeswaran and Another v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
K. Athinarayanan v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
Vaiko v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Mahesh v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Nandhini v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
Selvi v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
R v P, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Eswaran v The State and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
L Murugan v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
Muthukumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
P Revathi v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
T Prabhakaran v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
Chinna Maharaja v The Election Commission of India and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
M Suresh Kumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
Dhandapani (Died) and Others v. Balaji, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
Hindu Dharma Parishad v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
KR Kukesh BA v The Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
Nethrodaya v The Chief Electoral Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
Raja v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia v M/s. Power Soaps Limited and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
KVN Productions v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
Abdul Vahabudeen v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
K Raveendran v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
Janata Party v The Chief Election Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
V. Marisamy vs The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
M Karunanidhi v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
K Shankar and Others v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Radhakrishnan Parthiban v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
A Mohandoss v. The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Hari Nadar v The Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
RAS Senthilvel v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
V Malar v The Superintendent of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
State v M, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
M Raja v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
V Sarathkumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
MP Venkatesh v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
I Periyasamy v The Deputy Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
K Mani v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
Arappor Iyakkam v The Director, DVAC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
Shayee Nisha v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
Balaji v. Mehaboobani, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
M Sonaimuthu v The Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Sinora PS Ashok v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Uma Shankar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
K Punniyamoorthy and another v M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
P v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
B Gurunathan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
M v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
Rajesh v State and other connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
K Surya v/s Secretary to the Government & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
V v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Muthukumar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
M Vigneshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Nanjil Mugilan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
D Sathishkumar v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Murugan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
XXXX v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Rajammal v The Administrator and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Udayakumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Palanikumar v R Selvi, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
N v N, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
PK Sekar Babu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Vimala v The Director of Vigilance, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
S Rameshkumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Reports
Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1
The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith.
The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer.
Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2
The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale.
The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable.
Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi stated that Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin. They are stand-alone provisions requiring satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Any claim for relief by an assessee can be considered and granted by the authorities only if a claim is made indicating compliance with those conditions.
Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3
The Madras High Court recently remarked that if no permission was necessary to erect a stone pillar for honouring Stan Swamy in patta land, no such permission was necessary for erecting a war memorial also.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus allowed the construction of a stupa for honouring the Natham Kanawai War.
The judge recalled that in a recent order, the High Court had allowed construction of stone pillar for Stan Swamy with his picture, in a private patta land. The court noted that while many saw swamy as a fighter for tribal rights, it was also true that he was arrested in a UAPA case and died in prison. The court then remarked that if no permission was necessary for that construction, it wasn't necessary for a war memorial also.
Case Title: M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4
The Madras High Court has reiterated that animal sacrifice would not be permitted at the Thiruparankundram hills in the Madurai District.
Justice S Srimathy directed the managing trustee of the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkanthar Bhadhusha Dargha to conduct only the Urus festival (sandalwood festival) with 50 persons. The court also restrained the dargah from carrying animal meet, cooking or carrying non-vegetarian food. The court added that the direction must be followed from the base of the hill till its top.
Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'
Case Title: K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to halt the release of Sivakarthikeyan starrer “Parasakthi” movie following a plea alleging that the movie's script was stolen.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application filed to restrain the release of the movie or continuing to permit its exhibition in theatres and OTT platforms. The court noted that the main prayer was to not permit director Sudha Kongara and others associate their names with the movie, and so the interim relief travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer.
The court also noted that Rajendran became aware about production of the movie in 2023 but had filed the suit in 2025. Thus, the court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Rajendran and he could still claim damages even if the movie is released.
Noting that the Rajendran had not made out a case for grant of interim, the court dismissed the application.
Case Title: A Karthik v. Mrs Rashmi Siddharth Zagade and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
The Madras High Court recently remarked that that God or an Idol will never harm any person and the authorities cannot act on superstitions to remove idols from a person's house alleging that it has caused unnatural deaths in the locality.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ordered that a person can keep any idol in his own premises and worship peacefully by even inviting his friends or neighbors. The court added that the public cannot take law into their hands as a majority might and remove the idols.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 7
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development I Periyasamy and his family members challenging an ECIR registered against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the parties had filed the plea without approaching the adjudicating authority first. The bench thus directed them to approach the adjudicating authority as per law. The court added that if the parties were aggrieved by the orders of the adjudicating authority, they can file necessary pleas at such point of time.
Case Title: The Executive Officer v. Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 8
The Madras High Court (Madurai bench) on Tuesday (January 6) upheld a single judge's order directing lighting of the lamp at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
A division bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan, while pronouncing the order, held that the order of single judge is not hit by res judicata as the issue was not decided in earlier litigations.
The bench said that the appellants–including the state authorities, Hazarath Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Avuliya Dargah– had failed to produce formidable evidence to show that agama shastra prevented the lighting of the lamp at the site.
ALSO READ: Thiruparankundram Hill Row : Madras High Court Rejects Argument That 'Deepathoon' Was A Survey Stone
Madras High Court Upholds Trade Marks Registry Order Rejecting “Fresh Not Frozen” Mark
Case Title: Freshtohome Foods Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 9
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Freshtohome Foods Private Limited, a Bangalore-based online grocery delivery platform against a 2019 order of the Trade Marks Registry rejecting its trademark application for the brand “FRESH NOT FROZEN”.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025.
The court held that the proposed mark was deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark, “FRESH N FROZEN”, which covers similar food-related retail services. The court said customers were likely to be confused at first glance.
Madras High Court Sets Aside GST Demand For Not Considering CBIC Circulars Cited By Taxpayer
Case Name: Amman Try Trading Company Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 10
The Madras High Court has set aside a GST demand on a corporate guarantee after finding that the tax department failed to consider CBIC circulars relied upon by the taxpayer while raising the assessment.
Allowing the writ petition, Justice G R Swaminathan held that an assessment order cannot survive if the tax department fails to consider the defence raised by the taxpayer.
The court held, “When a defense raised by the noticee is not considered in the final order, the order is vulnerable on that ground. On the ground of non-consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee, the impugned order is set aside.”
Case Title: Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 11
The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited.
The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights.
Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order passed on December 12, 2025, rejected Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy's plea to lift an ex parte injunction granted earlier this year in Raj Television's copyright infringement suit.
Case Title: Origin Nutrition Private Limited v. Ms Tech7 Phyll Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 12
The Madras High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Origin Nutrition Private Limited, a maker of vegan protein products, in its trademark infrigment dispute with Tech7 Phyll Private Limited over the use of the name “ORIGIN/ORIGIN FRESH” for selling fruits and vegetables.
In an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice N Senthilkumar said that “ORIGIN” is a common, generic word and cannot be claimed as an exclusive trademark.
The court also pointed out that the two companies are in very different lines of business and serve different kinds of customers, leaving little room for any real confusion.
Buried Body Can't Be Exhumed Based On Sentiments Alone: Madras High Court Rejects Widow's Plea
Case Title: Elizabeth F. Santhi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 13
The Madras High Court recently rejected a woman's plea to exhume her deceased husband's body from the church cemetery.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the wife had not shown any compelling reasons to exhume the body and as such the exhumation could not be ordered on mere sentiments.
The court highlighted that the right to decent burial was encompassed within the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court also highlighted that the disinterment or exhumation of the bodily remains stands on a different footing.
Case title: P Naveenprasad v/s Homes Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 14
While hearing an urgent petition challenging the publication of a book allegedly making personal attacks against Justice GR Swaminathan, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 7) directed the police to seize copies of such publication and also asked the authorities to ensure such scandalous publication does not take place.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has also initiated suo moto contempt action against the publisher.
This comes, in the wake of the decision delivered on Tuesday by the division bench at Madurai, which has upheld Justice GR Swaminathan's order directing lighting of a lamp on a at the stone pillar atop the Thiruparakundram hills near a dargah.
Madras High Court Quashes CESTAT Chennai Order For Deciding Issues Not Under Appeal
Case Title: Antoine & Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. v. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has pulled up the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai for overstepping its mandate, quashing its order and holding that the Tribunal cannot decide issues that were never appealed before it.
A Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi said that although Section 129-B of the Customs Act, 1962 confers wide powers on the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, those powers are not unbridled.
Madras High Court Allows US Inventor's Late Patent Examination Request Despite Indian Agent's Error
Case Title: Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v. The Controller General Of Patents Designs
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 16
The Madras High Court has directed the Indian Patent Office to accept and process a request for examination filed by a US-based inventor, holding that a patent application cannot be treated as abandoned due to an inadvertent mistake by a patent agent.
The court ruled that in the absence of any intention to give up the invention, such procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh passed the order on December 18, 2025, while disposing of a writ petition filed by Smythe challenging the Patent Office's refusal to accept his request for examination in relation to an invention titled “Prediction, Visualisation and Remediation of Satellite Conjunctions.”
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 17
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 07) directed the Tamil Nadu Home Secretary to constitute district-level monitoring committees to ensure that the orderly system is completely abolished in the state.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the committee to be formulated within 2 weeks.
The committee shall be headed by the respective District Collectors and will have one revenue officer not below the rank of District Revenue Officer. It will further have two police officials not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commissioner of Police, who are to be directly nominated by the District Collector.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Gemini Communication Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 18
The Madras High Court has held that from May 14, 2007, companies had to file their income tax returns electronically, and that paper returns filed after that date carry no legal validity
A bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar rejected a claim for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, holding that electronic filing of returns was a mandatory requirement for availing the benefit.
Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Granting Relief To 93 Chennai Port Spillage Workers
Case Title: The Chairperson, Chennai Port Authority v. V. Manoharan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 19
The Madras High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by the Chennai Port Authority, refusing to set aside an arbitral award that directed the port to reinstate spillage-handling workers and grant back wages, gratuity and other service benefits to 93 workers.
A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh held that the award did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality and did not conflict with public policy.
The court observed that the Port Trust, as a State instrumentality, is “is expected to act with a higher degree of fairness than ordinary employers”.
Madras High Court Orders Removal Of Wipro's 'PREMIO' Trademark On Crompton Greaves Plea
Case Title: Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 20
The Madras High Court has ordered the removal of the “PREMIO” trademark registered in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited. The Court found that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years.
Justice N Senthilkumar passed the order on December 16, 2025. He allowed a rectification plea filed by Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a Mumbai-based consumer electricals manufacturer.
The court held that the disputed mark was liable to be removed from the Register of Trademarks. It observed that “the petitioner has made out a case that after registering their trademark, the 1st respondent has not done anything to carry out the trade by using the trademark for a period of more than five years.”
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 21
The Madras High Court, on Thursday, directed the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) to permit only 300 shops at Marina Beach in Chennai.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira said that the shops would be selling three categories of items – (i) Eatables, (ii) Toys and related goods, and (iii) Fancy goods or souvenirs. The bench added that 100 shops could be allotted to each category, but also gave liberty to the GCC to make alterations in the number of shops in each category
The bench also directed that the shops should be allocated through draw of lots and the entire process must be conducted under the supervision of a retired high court judge. The court said that it would pass further orders for appointing a retired high court judge to supervise the allotment procedure.
Case Title: T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 22
The Madras High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of celebrity chef Madhampatty Rangaraj restraining celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from making social media posts against the former.
Justice N Sentilkumar noted that there could not be a blanket order restricting a person from exercising their right to express their views. The court noted that if Rangaraj wanted to restrain posts against him, he had to establish that there was commercial exploitation of his personality rights.
Case Title: Versuni Holding BV v. Maya Appliances Private Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 23
The Madras High Court has dismissed a patent revocation plea filed by Maya Appliances Private Limited, a Chennai-based company, seeking to revoke a food processor patent held by Versuni Holding B.V., a Netherlands-based home appliances company.
In an order passed on December 19, 2025, Justice N. Senthilkumar allowed Versuni's application seeking rejection of the revocation proceedings, holding that the challenge was not maintainable since the very same issue had already been raised in a pending patent infringement suit before the Delhi High Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Alloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra, the Court reiterated that, “once a defence available to the first respondent herein has been exercised, the same cannot be re-agitated before any other forum or in any other manner.”
Case Title: M/s. KVN Productions LLP v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 24
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) directed the Central Board of Film Certification to forthwith grant U/A certificate to upcoming Tamil movie "Jana Nayagan" starring Vijay.
Justice PT Asha while pronouncing the order said: "After examining materials, it is crystal clear that the complainant's grievance appears to be an after thought".
The court said that entertaining such complaints would give rise to "dangerous trend".
The Court said that the action was without jurisdiction and once the modifications recommended by the examining committee is carried out, the certificate for the film would automatically follow.
Case Title: Commissioner of Income-tax Coimbatore v. M/s Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 25
The Madras High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot invoke its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by proceeding on an incorrect assumption about the nature of a transaction. The court ruled that such powers cannot be exercised where a demerger is wrongly treated as an amalgamation.
Dismissing the revenue's appeal, a bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the Commissioner had failed to first establish any error in the assessment order before ordering a revision.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 26
The Madras High Court on Friday (January 9) temporarily stayed the single judge's order delivered earlier today directing CBFC to forthwith grant U/A Certificate for Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan' starring Vijay.
A division bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan in its order dictated:
"Respondent Union of India was not given sufficient time..one main grievance of UoI was that they were not given time to reply. Another grievance is that letter dated January 6 was not challenged, but court (single judge) quashed it. Respondents argue that there was no urgency... All said and done there was no certificate granted to respondents".
Thereafter the bench stayed the single judge's order.
Case Title: Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27
The Madras High Court on Monday (January 12) passed a John Doe order protecting personality rights of renowned actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan from illegal use of his image and likeness as well as commercial merchandising.
The court however did not restrain permissible forms of creative expression such as satire and caricature.
The court said that since a john doe has been added as second respondent to the plaint, the plaintiff was directed to give public notice regarding the court order in English and Tamil newspapers.
Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28
The Madras High Court has restrained India Research Watch from publishing articles in connection with the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences without prior intimation to the Institute.
Justice P Dhanabal directed Research Watch to issue notice to the institute regarding queries or gist of articles to the email Id of the institute and await a response for 72 hours. The court added that if any response is received within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, if no such response was received, the organisation could publish the article.
The court, however, added that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on public records available, including court records.
Madras High Court Restrains Internet Service Providers From Illegally Streaming “Happy Patel” Movie
Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29
The Madras High Court has restrained more than 30 internet service providers from illegally streaming the upcoming Hindi movie “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos” produced by Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued the interim direction in a plea moved by the production company. Noting that the irreparable injury would be caused unless interim relief is granted, the court ordered accordingly.
At the same time, the court noted that due to the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it was possible that legitimate business interests might also get affected. In such cases, the court directed the production house to indemnify the parties concerned.
Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case.
Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
The Madras High Court has referred to its larger bench the question whether a person who has criminal cases pending against him, can be enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment.
The court also noted that though full bench of the High Court had agreed with a single judge on not allowing persons with pending criminal cases to enrol, the Supreme Court had held that the High Court cannot usurp the functions of a legislator and impose restrictions that did not exist in the Act.
The bench thus thought it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench and directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice.
Case Title: P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32
The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a request made by an organisation for conducting the Jallikattu festival at Avaniyapuram after noting that the State was already conducting it.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that, considering the international importance of the Jallikattu festival, the state itself was organising it and thus Court could not entertain any independent request seeking permission to conduct the festival.
Case Title: SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the government had decided to develop a prison in the government land where the university was encroaching.
The court also noted that the issues involved in the plea had already been litigated and the court could not interfere with the policy decision of the government by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue.
Case Title: Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34
"Caste passions and bigotry must be uprooted to realise the constitutional vision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar," the Madras High Court recently remarked while dealing with a case relating to honour killing of a Scheduled Caste man— Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu.
Stressing on the rights of victims and witnesses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that the investigating agency and the judiciary should work seamlessly to ensure that the life and liberty of even a single citizen should not be sacrificed at the altar of caste.
It also frowned upon the investigating agency for "selectively" not arresting the mother of Kavin's partner, both sub-inspector of police and accused in thethe third accused in the crime.
Case Title: K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35
The Madras High Court recently observed that a single appeal is maintainable against a common order involving a claim and counter claim.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that though a counterclaim is treated as a cross-suit under Order VII Rule A of CPC, a single judgment in the suit would not require multiplicity of appeal.
The court, however, added that though a single appeal can be preferred, there was a statutory obligation to value the appeal and pay court fee in respect of all adverse reliefs granted in the degree.
Case Title: Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36
The Madras High Court has reiterated that it cannot use inherent powers to mould the relief sought and grant a money decree when the same has not been sought or pleaded by the party.
Justice AD Maria Clete added that the inherent power of the court should be exercised within the framework of the CPC and the relief should be granted in accordance with the law, complying with the procedural and fiscal requirements.
The court also remarked that granting a relief which was not sought either by way of counterclaim or through independent proceedings amounts to travelling beyond the pleadings and violates the settled principle that no party can be granted a relief which has not been prayed or proved.
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the need to protect the rights of women who are caught up in the "modern web" of live-in relationships.
Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection.
The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage.
Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana Dharma
Justice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.
The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities.
The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation.
Case Title: Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State for collecting sensitive data of students who had stigmatic background.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan set aside an order passed by the Member Secretary of the Model School, calling for certain information of students. The court noted that the information was sensitive and there was no explanation on how this data was going to be used or stored. Calling it a violation of the privacy of students, the court noted that it would be a clear discrimination and ill-treatment of students studying in the Model schools.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case. The court, however, imposed additional conditions on his bail.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case.
The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case. The court made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action would be taken against Shankar.
The court has also directed the Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board consisting of experts to analyse and assess Shankar's medical condition. Shankar has been asked to appear before the board on 2nd February, which will examine him and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to the court on 3rd February 2026.
Can't Deny Maternity Benefit For Third Pregnancy Of Public Servants: Madras High Court Reiterates
Case Title: P Mangaiyarkkarasi v. The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 42
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the benefit of maternity leave should be extended to government servants even for their third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed also commented that, though similar orders have been passed by the Supreme Court and the high court repeatedly, the authorities failed to understand the intent of the previous orders. The court thus directed the High Court registry to circulate the order to all judicial officers heading the District Judiciary throughout the state to ensure stricter compliance.
The court also directed the Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the principles previously laid down by the court and communicate the order to the Secretaries of Government and Heads of departments for strict compliance.
Case Title: A Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court recently observed that encroachment, even if having a religious character, cannot be permitted on a public place or land vested with the local body. The court added that it is the duty of the Municipal Commissioner to remove the encroachment after due notice.
Justice V Lakshminarayana thus ordered the removal of a shrine of Mother Velankanni that had been installed in a public road. Commenting that a road or street does not have religious character, the court noted that, irrespective of the nature of the superstructure, the encroachment had to be removed.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 44
The Madras High court, on Tuesday (27th January) set aside an order of the single judge directing the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to grant U/A certificate for Vijay's Jana Nayagan movie.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, however, sent the matter back to the single judge for fresh consideration, noting that the natural justice principles were not followed. The single bench has been directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the CBFC to respond. The producer KVN Productions has also been given liberty to amend the writ petition.
Case Title: G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a non-citizen can also file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a State action if the same is allegedly arbitrary, making unreasonable discrimination and results in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also noted that the rehabilitation scheme for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees provides for benefits such as shelter, education, and employment in India, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the State Bank of India's action, in denying employment opportunity to an otherwise eligible candidate, merely on the ground that she was a Sri Lankan national was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
The Madras High Court recently lamented the institution of multiple cases in family disputes and commented that instead of approaching the Family Courts to settle the disputes, parties often expanded the disputes to criminal courts and other jurisdictions and sometimes even the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that there is no end to docket multiplication in family disputes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under,
“There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes. From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute…If the issue is not settled, they are supposed to go for trial and if a prayer is made for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, as the case may be, the Court will grant or refuse the relief depending on whether the grounds are made out or not. But, unfortunately, variety of litigations are filed for the family dispute,” the court said.
The court has also imposed costs on a father-in-law for filing a case against daughter-in-law for wreaking vengeance.
Case Title: Murugammal and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 47
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the construction of Kalabhairavar Dhagana Mandapam by the Isha Foundation.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayats (Provision of Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1999 did not prohibit granting of license for crematorium within 90 meters of dwelling place or source of drinking water supply. The court noted that as per the rules, the only pre-requisite was to obtain license from the village panchayat.
The bench also noted that construction of the gasifier crematorium would be for the benefit of the community and could not be said to be against public interest.
Case Title: Ponmudi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 48
The Madras High Court recently observed that higher courts should not mechanically issue directions to the authorities for early disposal of petitions and should consider the urgency required in each cases.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan observed that every court or statutory authority is expected to dispose of appeals, revisions, etc in a systematic manner and in order of seniority. The court added that if it issues directions to dispose of applications and any particular matter alone is disposed of, it would cause prejudice to other persons who are waiting for disposing their appeals.
Case Title: H Vennila v. State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 49
The Madras High Court recently observed that conferring a gold medal on students is an academic matter which should be left to the academicians.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that there was no legal right involved in getting a gold medal and it was only a competition between the students involved. The court thus took a different view than the one taken by the Delhi High Court.
The court noted that there was no legal right for granting gold medal and the meaning of “first attempt” should be left to the academicians themselves especially when they are imparting a meaning uniformly for all the students.
Case Title: V v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 50
The Madras High Court recently overturned the conviction of a father under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually assaulting his minor daughter.
Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the statement of the witnesses including the victim and the mother, was exaggerated, with malafide and was made only to wreak vengeance against the father while the divorce proceedings were pending between the parents.
Case Title: A.V.B.Prabhu v. The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 51
The Madras High Court recently observed that the State cannot unilaterally declare projects using temple funds. The court added that the State has no role to envision projects for temples without consulting with the temple itself.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice C Kumarappan thus set aside a Government Order issued by the State for carrying out civil works in Shri Kallazhagar Temple, Madurai to the tune of 40 crores as part of the state's “Iconic Project” to provide facilities in ancient temples.
The bench also noted that there was a meed to professionally manage temple assets through temple trustees who were to be appointed in rotation. The court added that the Trustees, who were to be persons of high standard, were to be assisted by a team of efficient managers with knowledge and interest in Hindu religion.
Case Title: Kottaisamy and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 52
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the accused booked under the POCSO Act after finding that the name of the survivor/victim was explicitly mentioned by their counsel in the cause title of the criminal petition.
A bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri strongly condemned the conduct of the petitioners' counsel and further directed that the said amount be paid to the survivor.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea By Actor Vijay Challenging 1.5 Crore Income Tax Penalty
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy noted that the show cause notice had been issued within the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
As the court found no infirmity in the issuance of the notice, it refrained from examining the other aspects of the matter.
At the same time, the court granted liberty to Vijay to assail the notice and the consequential order before the appellate tribunal on grounds other than limitation.
Case Title: Rathinam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 54
The Madras High Court has observed that Kumbabishekam festivals in a temple cannot be conducted by an individual, especially when there are multiple communities residing in a village.
Justice S Srimathy thus directed the fit person appointed to the Sri Muniyandi Swamy temple, Sri Ayyanar Swamy temple, Sri Karuppa Swamy temple and Sri Muthumariamman Swamy Temple to form a committee consisting of persons from each community for conducting the Kumbabishekam festival at the temples.
The court remarked that first honour should not be given to any community and there should not be any discrimination.
Case Title: Mukesh Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 55
The Madras High Court recently observed that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act would not come into play with respect to the acceptance of bond for appearance.
Justice L Victoria Gowri remarked that Section 37 comes into play only when the liberty of a person from custody is sought and not when the accused is merely securing appearance pursuant to the summons.
Case Title: Mr. D. Kaliyamoorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 56
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that resignation from service, even if for medical reasons, would result in forfeiture of past service and such a person would not be entitled to pensionary benefits.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held as under,
“'Resignation' from a service or post as per Rule 23 of The Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, resignation from service even on medical or health grounds entails forfeiture of past service. The grounds based on which resignation is sought is immaterial and resignation shall only mean forfeiture of past service,” the court said.
Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is made from the shirt pocket of the accused, it would be seen as a personal search, and compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Act would be mandatory during such a search.
Highlighting the importance of following statutory procedure under the Act, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary and the statutory safeguards are not empty formalities but minimum assurance to ensure that the powers were exercised responsibly and legally.
Madras High Court Permits 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Producer To Withdraw Plea Against CBFC
Case Title: M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 10) permitted KVN Productions, producers of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie to withdraw their plea challenging the certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification.
Justice PT Asha permitted a request made by Vijayan Subramaniam, advocate for the production company.
The production company had sent a letter to the High Court registry expressing its intention to withdraw the case. The production company had informed the court that it had decided to go ahead with the review process and thus did not wish to continue with the litigation. Following the letter, the case was posted today under the caption "for withdrawal".
Madras High Court Directs Producers Of Kochadaiyaan Movie To Pay ₹2.52 Crore Towards Unpaid Debt
Case Title: M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has directed Mediaone Global Entertainment, the production house engaged in the production of Rajnikanth starrer “Kochadaiyaan” movie, to pay Rs. 2.52 Crore towards unpaid debts.
Though Justice Sunder Mohan observed that neither the production house nor the complainant had proved their case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court highlighted that the purpose of the law was to compensate the complainant. The court also noted that the alleged cheque was issued in 2014 and the court had to adopt a course to secure ends of justice.
Case Title: Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view of conflicting decisions by two division benches.
The court thus concluded that the restrictions contained in the Act apply not only to fresh applications but also for re-issuance and renewal. The court noted that a person facing criminal proceedings is not absolutely disentitled from getting a passport but it was subject to the permission of the criminal court where the case was pending.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has asked cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni to pay Rs 10 lakh for translating old CDs involved in a Rs. 100 crore defamation suit filed by him over allegedly defamatory content against him in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that translating and transcribing the contents of the CD was a humongous task which would take the entire time of an Interpreter and Typist for almost 3 to 4 months. The court fixed the entire cost of the process and asked Dhoni to pay the charges since he was obligated as the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Finds Man Guilty Of Contempt For Accusing Sitting Judges Of 'Genocide'
Case Title: High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has found a man guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous allegations against sitting judges of the High Court, alleging that the judge had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, noted that the man had repeatedly made scandalising comments against more than 20 judges of the court and had made intemperate and unwarranted expression against the judiciary.
The court was taking up a suo motu contempt petition initiated against Ashok Surana. The suo motu was registered when Surana made serious comments against one of the judges who was presiding over the bench while hearing a petition filed by him. Surana had commented that the judge had committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.
Case Title: Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees.
Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment at workplace was a public duty and thus the writ petitions would be maintainable.
In the process, the court also ended a 25 year old legal battle by the woman employee against the management and directed the management to pay retirement benefits to the employee along with 60% of the back wages.
Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act noting that there was no failure of justice merely because there was a joint trial.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima observed that when courts were dealing with matters of child abuse, they must apply the laws in the best interest of the child and not the interest of the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, the court noted that the Special Court had rightly conducted joint trial against two accused who had committed the offence of sexual assault on a minor child, though separately.
Places Of Worship Act Does Not Protect Encroachment By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
Case Title: N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple in Ramanathapuram District of Tamil Nadu, claiming protection for the temple which was allegedly built on an encroached land.
Rejecting the claim that the ancient temple was protected under the Places of Worship Act, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the Act was only meant to protect the religious character of temples and not to protect a structure that was put up on Government land by encroaching.
Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Pastor For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor
Case Title: Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a pastor for sexually assaulting a minor who had physical and intellectual disability.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima held that the circumstances, the testimony of victim, and failure of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption established his guilt.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a pastor challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Special court.
Case Title: N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
A Madras High Court judge recently recused from hearing a case after All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) alleged that a senior advocate had taken a sum of Rs 50 Lakh from the client in the name of bribing the judge for passing suitable orders.
Justice Nirmal Kumar recused from hearing the case and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate bench and for issuing appropriate orders to the Vigilance Cell so that an enquiry could be conducted and appropriate action could be taken.
Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC
Case Name : The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan held that the service rendered as a full-time Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 cannot be treated as non-provincialised service. It must be fully counted along with Village Administrative Officer service for pensionary benefits.
It was noted by the court that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not contain any definition for the expression “non-provincialised service”. It was observed by the Court that after the Village Assistants were appointed as per Government Order, they were treated as full-time employees. Therefore their service could not be termed as non-provincialised service.
It was held by the Court that the service rendered as Village Assistant does not constitute “non-provincialised service.” Therefore the respondents are entitled to have their entire service counted for pensionary benefits.
Case Title: The Accountant General v. M Radhakrishnan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 69
The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibit contracting of a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that bigamous marriage was a grave misconduct under the service rules, warranting departmental action. Thus, the court ruled that the second wife's name could not be included in the Pension Payment Order even after the death of the first wife.
Case Title: S Muneeswaran and Another v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 70
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence of a couple for administering poison and killing their child with mental disorder.
While the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima sympathised with the parents and the difficulties that they may have faced to bring up the child, the court noted that the parents had a bounden duty to take care of their child whether the child was born with or without disabilities. The court also remarked that no one had the right to take law into their own hands and take another person's life.
Case Title: Government of Tamil Nadu and Others v. M Rajesh Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 71
The Madras High Court has reiterated that while promotion is not a fundamental right, the employee has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.
"It is well settled principle of law that the promotion is not a fundamental right, however, consideration for promotion is the fundamental right," the court said.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan however, added that one could not expect mathematical precision from a Government department to consider posting the employee in a particular post to make him eligible for promotion. The court added that in such matters, one had to see if there was any motivated abnormal delay on the part of the Government Department.
Case Title: Nagarajan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has expressed shock over ancient temple properties being let out on rent by officials of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department without taking steps to protect the structure.
Noting that the Joint Commissioner of the HR & CE was involved in the exploiting of the temple property for financial gain, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the tenants had no right to occupy or damage ancient structures in the temple based on illegal permission granted by the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s. Seyadu Beedi Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 73
The Madras High Court recently held that “beedi rollers” who have been employed through an intermediary agency would still be considered as employees under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Justice K Surender thus refused to interfere with an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the beedi rollers were liable to be enrolled as PF members. The court noted that the EPF Act was beneficial legislation, and though the company had adopted dubious methods to engage services of beedi rollers, it could not be said that they were not employees of the company.
Madras High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Political Parties Delisted By ECI
Case Title: Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam v The Chief Election Commissioner and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 74
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th February) refused to grant interim relief to political parties against their delisting by the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that if any interim relief was to be granted, it would amount to allowing the main prayer itself. The court thus dismissed the interim relief plea filed by the parties and refused to stay ECI's decision or revoke the registration of the parties till the disposal of the case.
The parties – Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, Manithaneya Makkal Katchi, and Manithaneya Jananayaga Katchi had approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the ECI on September 19, 2025, delisting 474 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) and to revoke the deregistration/delisting of the parties.
Case Title: KMC College of Law v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 75
The Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India to process applications filed by nine private law colleges seeking permission for additional intake starting from the academic year 2025-2026.
On the BCI's claim that there was no requirement for new Law Colleges in some areas, the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that such a drastic decision could not be taken regarding the arena of need-know basis, in the absence of any data for judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: Under Secretary to Government and Others v. Dr Ajitha and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 76
The Madras High Court recently ruled against High Courts allowing mop-up counselling for vacant seats after the scheduled date for counselling is over.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that allowing such violation of schedules would open a Pandora's box and defeat the whole purpose of fixing timelines for admission.
The bench also noted that though the founding fathers of the Constitution did not place any limitation on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the schedule for counselling and the last date of admission were prescribed by Establishment of Medical College Regulations (Amendment), 2025 and the courts could interfere in case of illegality only when the last date of admission was not over. The court added that when the last date of admission is over, the parties had to work out their remedy by approaching the Apex Court, which would decide the issue on a case-by-case basis.
Case Title: Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 77
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case against a woman, who had posted comments online on a picture of minor girls in school uniform holding liquor bottles. In the comment, the woman discussed the nature of the administration being rendered by the political party in the State.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the offences as alleged were not made out and quashed the cases registered against the woman for offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 of IPC along with Section 66E of the IT Act and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court noted that the complaint, which was lodged by a person belonging to a political party, appeared to be one filed for political vindication.
Case Title: N Samaran v. The Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 78
The Madras High Court recently observed that the temple festivals conducted by the State through the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department could not perpetuate caste.
Justice Bharata Chakravarthy noted that the very purpose of India becoming a republic was to treat everyone equally. The court added that the endeavour of every authority in the country should be to annihilate caste and not to perpetuate the same. The court thus submitted that a temple festival, being conducted by the State, could not be allowed to perpetuate caste by using caste names in the invitations.
Case Title: KS Balakrishnan v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 79
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person from the marginalised community cannot be denied access to public burial or cremation ground and the same is a criminal offence under the SC/ST Act.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan added that denying public burial or cremation ground to a person from marginalised community is a form of practicing untouchability which is prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
The Court also noted that the Act gave powers to the District Collector to issue directions whenever persons from marginalised community were treated unfairly. The court thus directed the District Collector of Erode to take action against persons who had allegedly levelled the graves of people belonging to the marginalised community.
Case Title: K. Athinarayanan v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
The Madras High Court on Friday (20th February) directed the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister for Municipal Administration, Urban and Water Supply, KN Nehru, for alleged bribery in appointments to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the ED had not just made a vague complaint, but had shared voluminous materials which showed that there was a prima facie case. The court added that even when a preliminary enquiry could be conducted by the State under Section 173 of the BNSS within 14 days, the State was only delaying the investigation.
Thus, noting that a probe by an independent agency was necessary, and noting that a prima face case had been made out, the court directed the DVAC to register a complaint and proceed with the investigation.
Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
The Madras High Court, on Friday (20th February), dismissed two writ petitions filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder Dr. Ramadoss seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to declare him as the party's President and to freeze the "Mango" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections till the party disputes are settled.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the parties to work out their remedies before the civil court.
Ramadoss had filed the first writ petition seeking to quash an earlier communication sent by ECI to Anbumani informing that the party has been allotted “Mango” symbol for the upcoming 2026 elections. He also called upon the ECI to issue a fresh communication to Ramadoss's address. Ramadoss alleged that Anbumani had committed fraud on the ECI and created documents without any authority to mislead the ECI as if Anbumani continued to be the party president.
Case Title: V Shiva v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has held that the term “Family” under the Indian Stamp Act does not include grandparents and any settlement made by the grandchildren in favour of the grandparent would be chargeable as per the appropriate provisions.
Answering a reference made to it, the full bench of Justice SM Subramaniam, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy and Justice C Kumarappan held that the Act, being a fiscal and revenue generation law, had to be taken in its literal meaning and could not be given a restrictive or expansive meaning.
Case Name: The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others v. N.K. Shankar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
A Division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar held that the penalty cannot justify withholding promotion after punishment ends. Further the 'check period' concept is illegal after imposition of the punishment.
Referring to the judgment in DIG of Police & Another v. V. Rani, it was held by the Court that the concept of a check period after the expiry of a punishment is illegal and cannot be used to withhold promotional consideration.
It was further noted by the Court that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had correctly granted the respondent notional promotion from 01.04.1987 and the consequential promotion thereafter. It was held by the Court that no error was apparent on the face of the record . With the aforesaid observations, the Review Application filed by the department was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. B Shankar Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
The Madras High Court recently held that generating Tatkal tickets for out-of-turn passengers without collecting fare would be misconduct under the Railway Service Conduct Rules. The court thus found an employee guilty of issuing tickets to third parties and violating the norms for issuing tickets.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the employee had generated tickets based on reservation forms, which were not handed over to him across the counter and which were collected by him before his duty time. The court thus concluded that he had violated the provisions of the Railways Service Conduct Rules.
Case Title: MIOT Hospitals Private Limited v. Dr.Balaraman Palaniappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
The Madras High Court has recently observed that a hospital cannot treat the doctors working with it as normal employees or restrain them from taking up employment at other hospitals post resignation.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the doctor is not like a workmen in a factory, or regular employees. The court remarked that doctors render their services to hospitals, and that hospitals would not be able to survive without such services.
The court also noted that the hospitals could not have "rivalry" among themselves as it was not similar to a commercial establishment. The court noted that the rivalry between hospitals itself was a misnomer since a hospital was an independent entity, running to serve patients and not a commercial business.
Case Title: Chellamanickam v. The Principle Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
The Madras High court recently rejected a man's request for a No Caste No Religion certificate, noting that the same could not be claimed without relinquishing the religion fiirst.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of Madurai Bench noted that unless the religion was relinquished as per existing rites, there was no question of issuing a certificate. The court added that when there was no proof of relinquishing religion, it could not direct the authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate.
Case Title: Vaiko v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (24th February) dismissed a plea filed by the General Secretary of Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and former Rajya Sabha MP Vaiko, challenging a 2012 notification issued by the Central government banning the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that the notification did not exist as on date and the court could not spend its judicial time on adjudicating an expired issue.
Case Title: B Shyam and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 88
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant approval for the kidney transplant of a law student from his maternal aunt's husband's brother.
Justice PT Asha observed that not every third-party donor has to be seen through the eyes of suspicion, and the Authorisation Committee only had to scrutinise whether the donation was backed by any commercial interest.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu Development Foundation Trust and another v. Government of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 89
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Thei District Collector, approved by the Principal District Judge, attaching the properties of an organisation that has been allegedly linked to the banned Popular Front of India (PFI).
Though the parties argued that they were not associated with PFI, the bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima noted that the PFI had used the premises of the petitioner to conduct Dawa work. The court also noted that the organisation's pamphlet and PFI's pamphlets contained the same contact number. Thus, the court opined that the notification, banning PFI and its member associations, would apply to the petitioner association also and it would be termed an unlawful association.
Case Title: Mrs Magitha Anna Christy v. State Human Rights Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 90
The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission of Tamil Nadu directing as Sub Inspector of Police to pay Rs 5 Lakh as compensation for custodial torture committed by her against a woman.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar also took note of the “arrogance” of the officer in not filing counter affidavit before the SHRC despite being given sufficient opportunities.
Noting the serious allegations against the officer and her failure to produce any records, the court concluded that the officer was not entitled to any indulgence by the court.
Periodical Medical Checkup Is Right Of Every Prisoner Under Article 21: Madras High Court
Case Title: M Kalaiselvi v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 91
The Madras High Court recently observed that every prisoner has a right to periodical medical check-ups and the same forms part of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi observed that the prisoners are also persons whose care and custody is with the prison authorities and the State. The court noted that the State has a duty to care for the needs of persons with special disabilities.
The court thus directed the Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai, to holda master health check-up for all prisoners in the prison once in two years. The court took note of the Supreme Court's observation in Muruganantham's case, which emphasised that reasonable accommodation was not option but integral for any humane and just carceral system.
Case Title: C. Ve. Shanmugam v. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 92
The Madras High Court has closed a case registered by the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women against Rajya Sabha MP C Ve Shanmugam for alleged derogatory comments made by him against women.
The woman's commission had initiated the case based on a complaint that in one of his speeches to the party cadres, Shanmugam had stated that the present Government may even announce one wife free to each citizen.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that the speech, by no stretch of imagination, could be seen as misogynistic or demeaning the womenfolk of the State, but was only a critique of the freebee policy of the State government. The court noted that it cannot be said that Shanmugan had compared women to commodities given by the State Government.
Case Title: MS Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 93
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State government for focusing on foreign investments while disregarding the local industries in the State.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Government was having a lackadaisical approach to local industries, but at the same time, extending subsidies and tax exemptions for the foreign investors. The court noted that such approach defeated the object of achieving sustainable development.
Case Title: VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 94
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBI probe into the alleged incident of issuing fake No Objection Certificates (NOC) for obtaining licenses to operate petrol pumps in the State.
Noting that the investigation being carried out by the State was not fair or independent, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Arul Murugan thought it fit to transfer the investigation to an independent agency and ordered accordingly. The court added that, though it was usually slow in transferring the probe to another agency in the present case, despite orders from the court, the investigation was not being carried out in a proper direction.
Madras High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 12 Accused In Murder Case Of BSP Leader K Armstrong
Case Title: Porkodi v. Siva and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has cancelled the bail of 12 accused persons arrested in connection with the murder of BSP leader K Armstrong.
Armstrong was brutally attacked and murdered on July 5, 2024.
Justice K Rajasekar decided to cancel bail after taking note of the submission made by Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniapparaj, who informed the court that the case was still at the stage of framing of charges and that granting bail to the accused at this stage might result in tampering with witnesses and destruction of evidence.
The court has also directed the accused persons to surrender before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai on or before March 6.
Case Title: P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has dismissed pleas by more than 300 families challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the State government as part of upgrading the Madurai airport to an international airport.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the government had acted fairly and reasonably and had even granted additional compensation to the families, along with providing alternate housing.
The court noted that in the present case, the land acquisition was started in 2009, and thus, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 would not be applicable in the present case. Though the petitioners also claimed 2 acre of agricultural land, the court noted that there was nothing to show that they were involved in agriculture and thus, the demand could not be accepted.
Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court, on Monday (March 2nd), remarked that Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathy had given a mischievous political spin to the Thiruparankundram issue when he made a statement that the Government would not permit lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar).
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp.
It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon.
Since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands.
Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has called for disciplinary action against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for failing to appear in a case, which ultimately led to an ex parte order being passed against government property.
Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest.
The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the delay on the State's part in pursuing appeals against orders on time.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a great delay and no satisfactory explanation was being given for the delay. The court noted that the delay seemed to be either due to negligence or due to connivance with the parties concerned. The court thus directed that a discreet vigilance enquiry can be conducted to unearth the truth.
Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has clarified that when an addressee has died, the post that was addressed to him can be handed over to his/her family, without sending it back to the sender.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was confusion on the category of persons who could collect the article since it had not been defined under the regulations. The court thus directed the Ministry of Communications to make suitable amendments to the Post Office Regulations to clearly define the persons to whom items could be delivered, where the addressee is dead.
Till the regulations are suitably amended, the court clarified that the articles could be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased, as they would undoubtedly fall within the category of persons to whom items could be delivered.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has criticised the delay on the part of the state in complying with court orders and removing encroachment of around 507 acres of temple land.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that constitutional governance should not be subordinate to electoral expediency. The court remarked that merely because a deity did not have voting rights, it should not be left remediless. The court added that it had a parens patiae jurisdiction, and when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, the rule of law itself stands tested.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court recently held that the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme [Marriage Assistance Scheme] of the Tamil Nadu government cannot be extended to every person who earns minimum wages.
Interfering with an observation made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the single judge could not substitute one executive policy for another. The bench noted that when there was no law that extended the scheme to persons with minimum wages, such a benefit could not be ordered by the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a boy convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Noting that the couple, both of whom were minors at the time, were having a consensual relationship, Justice N Mala noted that in such kinds of relationships, it was often the young boys who ended up bearing the consequences.
The court further noted that if wide publicity is given about the provisions of the POCSO Act and its stringency, as provided under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, this menace could be controlled to an extent. The court highlighted that lack of knowledge about the stringency of the provisions is one of the reasons that the law was being misused.
The court thus directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate positive steps to comply with Section 43 of the POCSO Act, to create awareness among the general public, children and parents about the act. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to consider organising camps in Government and private schools and colleges for creating awareness about the act and its dire consequences.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently held that the High Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct an enquiry into pay parity.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that when the state had issued clear directives that its prior approval was necessary for upgrading the pay scale of workers of Arasu Rubber Corporation, a public sector undertaking of the Tamil Nadu government, the court could not rule otherwise.
Case Title: E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Puducherry to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for sensitizing public officials for dealing with persons with disabilities.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan highlighted that persons with disabilities had to be treated equally without discrimination and attitudinal barriers, and with sensitivity. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to bring in an SOP for conducting sensitization programmes for public officials periodically.
The bench added that the right to access to justice and right to quality and equal treatment was basic human rights. However, the court added that while these principles found place in the constitution and the statute, the ground reality was different due to the attitude of the officials.
Case Title: B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court recently lamented that education was being prioritised only for admission to medical or engineering seats, and the parents were making their kids run a rat race.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that parents were making kids choose easier subjects, so that the child could focus on three subjects alone, making it easier to clear the NEET examination. The court added that in high schools, even the mother tongue was being sacrificed so that the child could focus on NEET preparation.
Case Title: The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court directed the transfer of a money laundering case lodged under the PMLA to the Special Court of CBI cases which is hearing the predicate offence under Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter, after noting that the Special Court under PC Act is a designated court under the PMLA as well.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan was considering a situation where the predicate offence is an offence under a special enactment being tried by a special court constituted under the special enactment, i.e., the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the PC Act.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court has asked the government to take appropriate action against District Collectors and police officials, if they do not act in accordance with the Government's policy to abolish the orderly system in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the orderly system had been abolished in the state and the government was duty-bound to work out modalities for enforcing its policy decision. For this, the court added that suitable actions could be taken against the officials who were not functioning in tune with government policies.
Case Title: Nandhini v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a woman for allegedly murdering her husband due to repeated quarrels and throwing his body in the nearby well.
While doing so, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that in homicidal death cases, the primary fact that had to be proved was the identity of the deceased, which was not done in the present case. The court added that unless the identity of the deceased is proved, the court could not go into other materials relied upon by the prosecution.
Registering Authority Cannot Usurp Powers Of Civil Court To Cancel Sale Deed: Madras High Court
Case Title: Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the registering authority does not have the power to go into the civil rights of parties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender held that the registering authority cannot usurp the powers of the civil court and can only interfere if there is any apparent error. The court added that if there is any doubt regarding the civil rights of the parties, the registering authority should relegate the matter to the civil court.
With respect to fraud, the court noted that there were threefold actions that could be taken in case of fraud. First, the aggrieved person may file a complaint and prosecute the persons under the criminal law. Second, the person can approach the civil court for establishing the civil rights. Third, the person can approach the competent authorities for cancelling the registered documents. The court, however, made it clear that the definition of fraud could not be expanded for adjudicating civil rights through administrative action.
Case Title: Selvi v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman convicted of the murder of her husband.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that the woman was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while convicting the wife, the trial court had noted that she had not discharged the burden to prove that she was not inside the house when the husband was killed.
The court ruled that merely because the parties were husband and wife, it could not be presumed that they would always be seen together. The court noted that the prosecution had not let in any evidence to show that the couple was last seen together and, in such circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not apply to shift the burden to the accused.
Case Title: St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to allot land to St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School in Cuddalore District in exchange for the land that the school had returned to a temple.
Noting that the land initially allotted for the school was sand dunes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the state had acted recklessly and given away sand dunes for development without considering its ecological impact. The court observed that the sand dunes were also an incarnation of God and without realising it, the state had given away God itself to protect the sentiments of the devotees.
Case Title: V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has quashed an order of the State Human Rights Commission recommending Rs. 2 Lakh compensation to Lois Sofia and disciplinary action against police officers who arrested her for raising slogans against former Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the SHRC had made its recommendations, noting that there were discrepancies in the time of arrest and that the charge under Section 505(1)(b) [statement conducing to public mischief] was inserted by hand in the printed FIR.
The court held that such discrepancies should have been a matter of trial and it was not for the SHRC to decide the issues. The court observed that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal. The court was thus inclined to quash the commission's order.
Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court recently lamented the misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country.
The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act.
Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court recently noted that one person cannot claim two dearness allowances.
Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances.
Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a group of men for allegedly attempting to damage public property using combustible material near the Central Bus Stand, Udhagamandalam.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that when there was nothing to show that the men had lit the combustible material, it could not be said that mischief had been committed.
Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court has held that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest, by doing cultivation for livelihood, are essential for being declared as a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival.
Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (17th March), stayed the contempt proceedings pending before a single judge of the Madurai bench over non-compliance of its order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has issued the interim stay on an appeal filed by the State authorities. The Court also remarked that such issues could have been avoided if the temple management itself had taken steps to light the lamp as per the order.
If Wife Elopes With Another Man, Habeas Corpus Petition No Remedy: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court recently observed that no remedy under a habeas corpus petition would lie for the disappearance of a wife, who actually eloped with another man.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking to produce the body of his wife and two kids, aged 3.5 years and 2 years, who were missing since March 6, 2026.
While the court noted that it could not do anything about the eloping of the wife and the husband had to work out his remedies against her before the appropriate court, the court expressed concern regarding the two kids.
Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Provisions Of Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th March) closed a public interest litigation challenging the provisions of the Centre's new law replacing the MGREGA, the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G].
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the case after the petitioner informed the bench that he would withdraw the case.
The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Ban Pre-Poll Alliance Between Political Parties
Case Title: R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that a direction could not be issued to the ECI to restrict parties from forming pre-poll alliances. The bench also noted that its Madurai bench had earlier dismissed a similar plea seeking identical relief. Thus, finding no merits, the court dismissed the plea.
The petitioner, R Viswanathan, argued that pre-poll alliances were often formed, not in the interest of democracy but with selfish motives to defeat a common political enemy. It has been submitted that pre-poll alliances are formed to gain political power by hook or crook without any ideology, and the parties are not bothered about the welfare of the people.
Case Title: Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court has issued extensive directions for the removal of Seemai Karuvelam (Prosopis Juliflora) in the State including setting up of a special committee consisting of two retired judges of the Madras High Court (Justice A Selvam in the South and Justice V Bharathidasan in the North) to supervise the action taken by the District Collectors.
The specially constituted bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that even though 11 years had passed since the first order of the court for removing Seemai Karuvelam, no substantial progress had been made. In such a situation, the court said it was left with only two options – either to initiate contempt against the officers or to issue further directions. Since the first option would not yield the desired result of removing the invasive species, the court decided to go ahead with the latter.
Case Title: S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court recently lamented that instead of focusing on real and tangible things in life, people are focusing on non-existent things like caste, which do not have any existence than in the minds of people.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while noting that the state authorities in Ramanathapuram District had denied permission for installing a statue of freedom fighter Veerapandiya Kattabomman on the ground that the people were seeking the erection of a statue for caste consolidation
The court noted that everyone had duty under constitution to create a casteless egalitarian society which cannot be forgotten and when the authorities had passed this order keeping in mind this duty, it cannot be interfered with.
“Not A Shortcut”: Madras High Court Cautions Against Routine Use Of Detention Orders
Case Title: R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently observed that the detention law cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal law procedure.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal added that the authorities can not resort to passing detention orders in every case of murder. The court added that instructions should be given to the Government to ensure that detention orders are not passed in a mechanical manner in all cases involving a solitary incident, which could be dealt with under the normal criminal law. The court added that if such cases are found in the future, costs would be imposed on the same.
Case Title: Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has recently observed that obtaining an environment clearance certificate is not compulsory during the acquisition of land for projects for National Highways.
As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2016, obtaining an environment clearance was mandatory for all projects and activities in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 kms.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the clearance was mandatory for all construction activities. The court noted that the construction would happen only after the land is entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India and not at the time of acquisition. The court added that at the time of land acquisition, the land would only be vested with the Government. The court thus concluded that the clearance was not necessary at the time of acquisition but during the commencement of development activities.
Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act.
The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective.
Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by Director Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company Photon Factory, challenging a single judge's order directing them to repay Rs. 4.25 Crore along with 12% interest to production company RS Infotainment for failure to make a movie as agreed between the parties.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar, challenging his solitary confinement in prison during his incarceration in December 2025 in connection with an alleged extortion case.
Significant to note that Shankar is currently out on interim bail in the matter.
The court also disposed of a petition filed by her seeking specialised medical treatment for him in prison.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman also dismissed as infructuous an application filed by Shankar seeking review of the additional bail conditions imposed on him.
Though the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the interim bail granted to Shankar would expire on 25th March (tomorrow), and he may be directed to surrender before the police, the court made it clear that it could not issue such directions, and it was for the police to take steps against him if he did not surrender.
Case Title: S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently directed the Dindigul Taluk Police Station to register an FIR against a man, for allegedly forging the signature of his adopted mother in an attempt to loot her properties.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima also dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the man against alleged illegal detention of the mother by a care home, after noting that the mother was willingly staying at the Home, after facing life threat at the hand of the adopted son. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the man.
Case Title: XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (24 March), directed the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to conduct a day-to-day trial in connection with the sexual assault of a 10-year-old in Chennai's Anna Nagar area.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the court to expedite the trial and dispose of it at the earliest. The court also ordered adequate police protection for the victim and her family for a fair trial.
Case Title: S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a man's plea seeking permission to conduct daily protests till the end of World War.
Justice Victoria Gowri also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the man for filing frivolous petitions for his eccentric needs. The court noted that constitutional rights were meant to enlarge participation and could not be used to assert a right in total disregard of public order.
The court also criticised the manner in which the man had refused to hold the protest at an alternative site suggested by the State administration, near statues of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue, solely because he saw them as icons of casteism. The court noted that both the leaders were historical figures and the petitioner could not be justified in making such remarks against them.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (26 March), temporarily stayed all further proceedings in a case registered against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his comments against Saivism, Vaishnavism and women.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira allowed a plea filed by the former minister seeking a stay of the proceedings till the disposal of a plea filed by him challenging the Magistrate's order, taking cognisance of the complaint filed by BJP's Uma Anandan against Ponmudi. The court also allowed a plea dispensing with his further appearance before the Magistrate.
Ponmudi had filed the plea against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, through which the Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.
Case Title: C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over the body of 26-year-old Akash, who died due to alleged custodial violence in Manamadurai, being used as a "means of protest".
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman said that providing a decent burial is also a facet of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that neither the state nor the officials were preventing the conduct of the last rites, and it was for the family members of the deceased to proceed with his rites.
Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf.
Justice PB Balaji observed,
“At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”.
Liquor Consumption Is Personal Choice, But Shops Causing Nuisance Must Be Checked: Madras High Court
Case Title: T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Setting aside a recreational club's alcohol license, the Madras High Court observed that while consuming alcohol is the personal choice of a person, no nuisance should be caused to the persons living in a locality by granting license to operate liquor shop.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman noted that while granting license, the authority should conduct inquiry and find that three primary conditions are satisfied, i.e, (i) the local needs justify the grant of license, (ii) the public interest does not suffer by grant of license, and (iii) the privilege (of license) is not misused. Noting that the authority had not considered these aspects, the court set aside the license.
Case Title: R v P
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court recently confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing a divorce petition filed by a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that bickering between husband and wife was common, especially in the initial days of marriage. The court added that if such bickering was projected as cruelty, most marriages would have to be dissolved. The court highlighted that a stable relationship required patience and adjustments.
Case Title: KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (1st April), dismissed a plea seeking to prevent illegal distribution of cash either directly or through tokens, and other inducements to voters at the time of elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the submissions made by the Election Commission of India and the State Government that necessary steps were being taken to curb the issue. Remarking that the petition was just a publicity interest litigation, the court dismissed the same.
Case Title: M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a law student for making a Facebook post to break and remove a statue of EVR Periyar installed in front of the Srirangam temple.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the student had only expressed his opinion that such a statue would hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. The court noted that such an expression of opinion had not caused any untoward incident. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the criminal case.
Case Title: Eswaran v The State and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
A full bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Governor is bound by the decision of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to the remission and premature release of a convict prisoner.
Answering a reference made to it, the bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice Sunder Mohan held that the governor is bound by the decision of the council of ministers, whether he likes it or not and under no circumstances can the Governor take a different view.
The full bench held that in the position of law was laid down by the Constitution bench in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, wherein it was categorically held that the Governor was a formal head and was incapable of acting except on and according to the advice of the Council of Ministers, regardless of whether the Governor likes the advice or not.
State Appointing Law Officers Only On Basis Of Political Allegiance, Not Merit: Madras High Court
Case Title: Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the State government was appointing Government pleaders, public prosecutors, and law officers only based on their political allegiance and not on the basis of merit.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that in some cases, the only qualification of the law officers appointed by the State was their involvement in menial political activities, like sticking posters for the party. The court added that this practice struck at the very root of professional standards that was expected by the officers.
The court added that even after appointment, many such law officers did not take efforts to develop the necessary skills that was needed in the profession, which was making the litigants suffer and compromising the administration of justice.
Case Title: L Murugan v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has quashed two cases against Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs L Murugan for alleged bribery in connection with the 2024 Parliamentary Election.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira quashed the two cases on Thursday (2nd April).
The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the Deputy Tahsildar based on a report of the Village Administrative Officer, alleging that Murugan had engaged in election-related misconduct while contesting in the 2024 Parliamentary Elections from the Nilgiris Constituency. It was argued that during his visit to the Hariyudaiyan Temple and the Kadanadu Community Centre, he had gathered local residents, causing unlawful assembly and unauthorised election campaigning before 100 persons. Though the FIR was first registered for offences under Section 171E of the IPC, it was later changed to Sections 143 and 171H of the IPC.
Case Title: Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
The Madras High Court has stayed a Government Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu allowing police to exercise powers of the Judicial Magistrate.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has stayed the Government Order issued by the Home (Courts – VIA) Department) on December 4, 2025, under Section 15 of the BNSS.
The court ordered an interim stay on a petition filed by Nallathambi of Madurai. Nallathambi challenging the constitutional validity of the GO.
Case Title: The Vice President v. Joint Commissioner of Labour and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 144
The Madras High Court recently observed that a company abruptly blocking an employee's smart card access to terminate him from work violates the basic dignity of labour.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that people in managerial positions should take a more empathetic approach and think from the employee's point of view. The court added that such an abrupt termination violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Protection of Human Rights Act.
Case Title: Muthukumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
The Madras High Court recently observed that the entries made by a doctor in an accident register cannot be taken as gospels of truth or be used to discredit the statement of unassailable witnesses.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal thus refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence of a man for the murder of his wife.
The court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court where it was held that the injury certificate does not amount to an admission as the Doctor, at that stage, was only required to fill up the columns in a normal manner. The court noted that at that stage, the doctor was not concerned with the finer details of the case and was only filling up the columns provided in the Register. The court thus emphasised that the entries made in the Accident Register could not be taken to be gospels of truth.
Case Title: Murugan Asari v. Chinnammal and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 146
The Madras High Court has recently held that a Karta does not have the authority to unilaterally transfer a substantial portion of the joint family property to one coparcener, to the exclusion of others.
Justice AD Maria Clete held that such a gift would give exclusive benefit to one coparcener and would destroy the proprietary rights of other coparceners.
The court also noted that a gift was outside the competence of the Karta and such gratuitous transfers could be made only in limited situations for legal necessity, benefit of estate, charitable purpose, gifts for a daughter's marriage, or indispensable duties.
Case Title: P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
The Madras High Court recently observed that temple poojaris are not entitled to claim a share in the collections from temple hundis (donation box) as a matter of right.
Noting that religion should not be used as a cloak for enrichment, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that hundi collection was a resource for the temple and not the fiefdom of the poojaris.
Noting the massive collection that the temple received from the devotees and the misappropriation of temple funds by the appellants, the court said that it was imperative for the Government to intervene in the administration of the temple. Noting that such fights for hundi collection shocked the court's judicial conscience, the court held that it was a stark reminder of the need for equitable and responsible financial management.
Case Title: P Revathi v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
The Madras High Court has directed the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri, to inquire into claims of a woman that her family is being ostracised by the village upon directions of the Katta Panchayat (Kangaroo court).
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy directed the authorities to conduct an inquiry and ensure that no injustice is caused to the woman and her family, and their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are preserved.
Case Title: T Prabhakaran v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (7th April), dismissed as withdrawn a plea seeking to reschedule the dates for IPL matches that are proposed to be held in the Chepauk Stadium in Chennai, considering the upcoming assembly elections in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that one match had already taken place post the filing of the plea, and there was nothing to show that any violation had taken place during the match.
The court also noted that the Election Commission of India was taking necessary steps, and if there was any violation, it was open for the petitioner to approach the ECI.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Extend Nomination Period For TN Assembly Elections 2026
Case Title: Chinna Maharaja v The Election Commission of India and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 150
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commision of India to extend the nomination filing period for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Elections 2026. It may be noted that the nomination period for the TN Assembly elections was fixed from March 30, 2026, to April 6, 2026.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed a petition filed by Chinna Maharaja of Tirunelveli District. The court noted that the schedule for the election was fixed by the Election Commission of India as per Section 30 of the Representation of Peoples Act and the court could not extend such time limit.
Case Title: ML Ravi v. Chief Election Commissioner and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 151
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to frame appropriate guidelines and regulatory measures to prevent misuse of reserved election symbols.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea filed by ML Ravi, President of Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi (DMSK) party, seeking to prevent the issuance of Form A and Form B to candidates belonging to other political parties.
The court noted that no material had been placed to show that symbols belonging to one political party had been assigned to persons belonging to another political party. It said the plea sought for a general prayer, which the court was not inclined to grant. The court also noted that a similar petition filed by Ravi had already been dismissed by the court previously.
Katchanatham Caste Killings: Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of 26 Accused, Acquits One
Case Title: M Suresh Kumar v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 152
The Madras High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on 26 men involved in the caste killings that happened in Katchnatham Village in Sivagangai District.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima acquitted one person, noting that his presence at the crime scene was highly improbable.
The case relates to the violence that took place in Katchnatham Village, which resulted in the death of three and left five injured. As per the prosecution, on May 25, 2018, during the annual temple festival in Karuppar Temple, ceremonial honours were exclusively accorded to the members belonging to the scheduled caste community. This decision offended the accused persons who belonged to other communities.
Case Title: Dhandapani (Died) and Others v. Balaji
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 153
The Madras High Court recently observed that a decree of defamation touches upon the character and reputation of a person against whom it is passed, and such stigma would continue even after the person's death.
The court added that the legal representatives, in such a situation, would want to remove the stigma and could continue the proceedings.
Case Title: JN Naresh Kumar v Jayakaran Vasudevan and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 154
The Madras High Court recently held that a lawyer cannot be prosecuted for the offence of defamation, merely for statements made by him upon a client's instructions.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that a lawyer only speaks on behalf of his client and has no opportunity to verify the truthfulness of the facts narrated by the client. The court added that any responsibility for such a statement should be on the client and not the advocate, and any contrary view would be against the settled law on lawyers' privilege.
Case Title: Himanshu Pathak v Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 155
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by cybersecurity specialist Himanshu Pathak against a single judge's order dismissing his plea seeking directions to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, IRDAI, and SEBI to inquire into alleged data security lapses in Star Heath Insurance Company.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that while dismissing his writ petition, the single judge had rightly given him liberty to work out his remedies in pending civil proceedings, and thus there was no error or infirmity in the decision of the writ court.
Case Title: Hindu Dharma Parishad v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 156
The Madras High Court on Thursday (9 April) dismissed a petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad seeking to light lamp atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman criticised filing such pleas for political gains and dismissed the plea.
“You're using this for your political gain? Doesn't the court have any other work to do? Is there no issue other than Thiruparankundram?” the bench orally remarked.
For context, on December 1, 2025, a single judge had ordered the management of the Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple to light the Karthigai Deepam lamp at 6 pm on December 3rd. A contempt petition was filed on December 3, alleging that no arrangements had been made to comply with the order.
Case Title: D Rakesh v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 157
The Madras High Court, on Friday (10th April), dismissed writ petitions filed against screening of Ranveer Singh starrer "Dhurandhar 2: The Revenge" movie in Tamil Nadu till the end of assembly elevtions in the State.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was no law that prevent screening of a movie while the Model Code of Conduct was in place. The bench also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the certificate issued by the Central Board of Film Certification, without which, the court could not issue any direction to prevent screening of the movie.
Case Title: KR Kukesh BA v The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 158
The Madras High Court, on Friday (10 April), dismissed a public interest litigation seeking SMS confirmation while casting votes for the upcoming assembly elections in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the election process had already begun and at this point, the court could not issue any such directions to the Election Commission of India. The court remarked that the suggestion could be considered in the next elections.
Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea by Pattali Makkal Katchi founder Dr S Ramadoss challenging an interim order of the Chennai City Civil Court refusing to direct the Election Commission of India to freeze the “Mango” symbol for the upcoming elections in the State.
Justice TV Thamilselvi, on Friday (10th April), dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Ramadoss. The court noted that the relief sought had the nature of interfering with the election process and once the elections are notified, the courts could not pass such orders.
Case Title: The Managing Director v Mariyammal and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 160
The Madras High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, fixing a contributory negligence of 7% on a deceased man who was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
Though the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation argued that it was the percentage of contributory negligence should have been enhanced on account of non-wearing of helmet, the bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that mere violation of a statutory provision does not give a right to the tort feasor to plead contributory negligence unless it is proved that the violation had a nexus with the accident.
Case Title: Nethrodaya v The Chief Electoral Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 161
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (15 April) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to introduce audio-enabled Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) for visually impaired voters in the upcoming Tamil Nadu assembly elections.
While the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan appreciated the grounds raised in the petition, the court noted that it could not issue directions to the ECI to introduce a new system after the electoral process has begun.
When the petitioner organisation Nethrodaya insisted that the court direct the ECI to consider a representation submitted by it in this regard, the court pointed out that no provision allows it to ask election authorities to introduce a system in between the elections.
Trial Court Can't Order Impounding Of Passport As A Condition For Granting Bail: Madras High Court
Case Title: Raja v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 162
The Madras High Court recently observed that the trial court does not have power to order impounding of passport as a condition for granting bail.
Justice P Dhanabal held that under Section 109 of the BNSS (Section 104 of the CrPC), the court had power to impound any document, but not the passport. The court observed that the power to impound passport was only with the passport authorities under Section 10(3) of the Passport Act.
The court added that the power to impound passport was provided under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. The court observed that the Passport Act was a special law while the criminal procedure was a general law and thus the special law would prevail over the general law. The court thus concluded that, as far as the passport is concerned, the passport authorities alone could impound the passport and the trial court cannot impose such a condition to deposit the passport.
Case Title: Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia v M/s. Power Soaps Limited and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 163
The Madras High Court on Thursday (April 16) dismissed an appeal filed by actress Tamanna Bhatia challenging an order of a single judge rejecting her plea seeking damages of Rs 1 Crore from Power soaps for 'unauthorisedly' using her images despite expiry of contract.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi upheld the order passed by the single judge in 2017.
In her original suit, Tamanna had stated that she had entered into an agreement with Power Soaps on October 7, 2008, agreeing the use of her pictures in the wrappers of soaps manufactured by the company.
Tamanna had argued that even after the expiry of the agreement, the company continued to use her pictures on their products, without her approval. She submitted that such continued usage had caused her loss, which she quantified at Rs 1 crore.
Madras High Court Prevents Illegal Broadcast of Vijay Starrer "Jana Nayagan" Movie
Case Title: KVN Productions v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 164
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (16 April) has granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie's producers, KVN Productions. The production company had moved the court after noting that parts of the movie were being illegally streamed online, even before it was certified by the Central Bureau of Certification.
Case Title: Abdul Vahabudeen v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 165
The Madras High Court on Thursday (16 April) dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the Chief Election Commissioner and the State Election Commissioner to permit postal ballots for college students studying in various parts of the State, away from their native places.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court of India, in which the court had already issued notice. Thus, noting that the issue in the present petition was identical, the court closed the plea.
Case Title: Jesudass Cornelius v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 166
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea directing the Thiruvallur District Collector and the Commissioner of Thiruverkadu Municipality to maintain a land earmarked for public park by removing the alleged encroachments, including a temple.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the temple has existed in the land for almost 5 decades and could not be said to be an encroachment. The court noted that the temple was a place for the mental well-being of the people and could be treated as a part of the park. The court also made it clear that the belief and faith of the general public cannot be disturbed on mere allegations of encroachment.
The court noted that the petition was filed with a malafide intention to cause a communal riot and decided to dismiss it with costs. The court thus directed the petitioner to pay Rs 1 Lakh to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks.
Case Title: K Raveendran v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 167
The Madras High Court, on Friday (April 17), disposed of a plea seeking an inquiry into the alleged distribution of cash tokens by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) candidate R Manohar in the Harbour assembly constituency for the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan disposed the plea after taking note of the submissions made by the standing counsel for the Election Commission of India, Niranjan Rajagopal.
The ECI informed the court that after receiving complaints, the flying squad visited the area but did not find any materials. It was also submitted that the investigation is ongoing and an FIR has also been registered in this regard. The ECI also informed the court that the issue is being monitored and a positive action will be taken.
Case Title: Janata Party v The Chief Election Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 168
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the Janata Party alleging the use of a deceptively similar symbol by Naam Tamilar Katchi.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the petitioner party had not produced any document to substantiate their claim. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. The Election Commission of India (2008), had dealt with a similar issue regarding the party's right to seek a symbol. Thus, the court was inclined to dismiss the plea.
The party had approached the court seeking direction to the Chief Election Officer to consider the party's representation and immediately intervene to take appropriate action and prevent misuse of the party's symbol by NTK.
Case title: V. Marisamy vs The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 169
Observing that normally poor victims rarely get justice in the current system, the Madras High Court recently transferred the probe into the unnatural death of a 5-year-old UKG Student inside her school campus in March this year.
Stressing that the victims have a right to a fair investigation, which is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, a bench of Justice B Pugalendhi directed the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, to withdraw the case from the local police and hand it over for probe to a sincere senior police officer.
Madras High Court Stays Case Against BJP's K Annamalai Over Alleged Provocative Speech
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court on Monday (20 April) stayed a case against former State President of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), K Annamalai, for his alleged provocative speech, remarks on political leader and freedom fighter Muthuramalinga Thevar.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar admitted a quash petition filed by K Annamalai and adjourned the case. Meanwhile, the court stayed the proceedings against him.
Madras High Court Dismisses DMK MP's Plea Seeking Registration Of ED Case Against 9 AIADMK Leaders
Case Title: R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 20) dismissed a batch of pleas filed by DMK MP R Girirajan, seeking registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against nine leaders of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in connection with the corruption and disproportionate assets case against them.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after hearing Senior Advocate NR Elango for Girirajan and Special Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate, N Ramesh. A detailed order is awaited.
Case Title: R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (21st April) dismissed a plea filed by DMK Rajya Sabha MP R Girirajan seeking registration of an Enforcement case against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and Kesava Vinayagam in connection with a cash-for-vote case.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the case and noted that it would pass orders similar to the one passed in the nine cases filed by the MP seeking action against AIADMK leaders.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Rajya Sabha MP R Girirajan had moved the Madras High Court, calling for action by Enforcement Directorate against BJP's State President Nainar Nagendran in connection with a 'cash for vote' case. Action was also sought against Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary for Tamil Nadu BJP.
Case Title: Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to debar the current Leader of Opposition of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Edappadi K Palaniswami, from campaigning and contesting in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections for allegedly violating the Representation of People Act and making statements against the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister during his speeches.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the decision of the Supreme Court Jafar ImamNaqvi v. Election Commission of India, wherein the court had held that a public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during the election campaign was not maintainable.
Case Title: M Karunanidhi v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a probe by the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer (District Election Officer) to verify the financial disclosures made by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Aadhav Arjuna in his election affidavit filed for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the petition filed by M Karunanidhi, a resident of Chennai, seeking a probe. Another petition had been filed to debar Arjuna, but the same has not been numbered yet.
While dismissing the plea, the court noted that it could not pass such directions to the Election Commission of India once the election process had begun. The court noted that it was within the domain of ECI to probe into the financial disclosures.
Case Title: K Shankar and Others v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to three men who were accused of abusing and attacking a college bus carrying 25 female students, while participating in a funeral procession in an inebriated condition.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the allegations were serious in nature, where a public vehicle carrying girl students was blocked, and the occupants were harassed. The court noted that the incident of violence, by persons under the influence of alcohol, could not be taken lightly.
Further, taking a serious view of repeated instances of violence during funeral processions, the Court has also directed the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to examine the suitability of enacting legislation to govern funeral processions in the State, to ensure that public safety is not endangered while carrying out such processions. The court noted that despite a circular of the Director General of Police, incidents of disorderly conduct during processions continued, posing serious risks to bystanders, road users and the general public.
Madras High Court Directs Issuance Of “No Caste No Religion” Certificate To Cine Actor R Parthiban
Case Title: Radhakrishnan Parthiban v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has directed the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur to issue a “No Caste No Religion” certificate to cine actor R Parthiban.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of an order passed by a division bench of the High Court in which the court had directed the state to empower revenue authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate. The court thus directed the authorities to issue a certificate to the actor and also appreciated the actor for seeking such a certificate.
Parthiban approached the court after his application seeking a no caste no religion certificate was not considered by the authorities. He pointed out that as per the previous order of the court, the certificate was to be issued within a month. In the present case, Parthian had filed an application with the Tahsildar, Velachery, which was subsequently transferred to the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, on jurisdiction grounds. However, since the application had not been considered till date, he moved the High Court.
Case Title: A Mohandoss v. The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking action against Dr P Umanath, Secretary to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for alleged violation of the model code of conduct.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the allegations raised by the petitioner were vague and not supported by any materials. The court remarked that it could not delve into disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the absence of any materials.
The court also noted that the petitioner, as an interim relief, had sought the transfer of the officer, which was not maintainable in a public interest litigation.
Case Title: Hari Nadar v The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (22 April) dismissed a plea filed by a man, currently detained in the Puzhal Central Prison, seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to permit him to vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections, either through postal ballot or in person.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after taking note of the law in Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the right to vote and bars persons confined in prison from voting.
Case Title: RAS Senthilvel v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Madras High Court has closed a plea alleging cash distribution by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Polls.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the submissions by the Election Commission of India, informing that FIRs had been registered wherever violations had been observed, and a show cause notice had also been issued to the party. The ECI also informed that necessary action was being taken.
The court thus closed the plea filed by R.A.S Senthilvel, an advocate and Deputy Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) State Advocate Wing.
Case Title: V Malar v The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court has recently ordered compensation to a woman whose house was illegally demolished by a group of men. The court has also directed the men to immediately restore the demolished structure.
Highlighting the importance of shelter for a woman, Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the dignity of a woman was inseparably connected to her right to shelter. The court also took note of the Supreme Court observations, stating that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution would also include the right to residence.
Case Title: State v M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently commuted the death sentence of a father convicted for raping and impregnating his minor daughter.
Noting that spending the remainder of his life in prison with constant guilt of his actions would be a bigger punishment than death, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan ordered him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without release, remission or commutation.
With respect to the sentence, though the court noted that the crime, by its very nature had shocked the conscience of the court, it also observed that the exercise of sentencing does not end with the gravity of the offence.
The court noted that the man, who was currently in jail, stood alone due to social and familial abandonment. The court noted that the man's family had openly sought the severest punishment against him and no one from the family or village had contacted him.
The court noted that the man was living a life of exile, which was not a mere incidental hardship but a continuing and severe form of punishment.
Citing Vedas, Madras High Court Orders Action Against Those Polluting Village Tank For Fish Farming
Case Title: M Raja v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court recently cautioned against polluting any form of water sources for monetisation, like fish farming.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the Vedas had warned against polluting water, viewing it as a great sin and a punishable crime. Citing examples of Lord Krishna punishing serpent Kaliya for poisoning drinking water and Bharata's words to Kausalya, the court said that the Vedas have also talked about keeping the winds and rivers free of pollution.
Case Title: V Sarathkumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame a comprehensive scheme for the rehabilitation of transgender persons at the Taluk levels, ensuring them avenues for self-employment and suitable livelihood and ensuring their meaningful inclusion in the society.
Noting that transgender people are also children of God, Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the creator had not erred in their birth, but the tragedy was in the blindness of the society, which continued to drive the community to extreme marginalisation, like begging on the street.
The court underlined that transgender persons are entitled to be accepted as equals and the court could not be a mute spectator to the indignities suffered by the vulnerable class. The court added that the continued marginalisation of the community members reflected a collective societal failure to uphold the basic values of empathy, equality and fraternity and in discharge of the court's constitutional duty, as an instrument of justice to alleviate the hardship.
Madras High Court Dismisses Fresh Plea Seeking ECI Probe Into Assets Declared By TVK Chief Vijay
Case Title: MP Venkatesh v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
The Madras High Court, on Monday (April 27) dismissed a fresh petition seeking an enquiry by the Election Commission of India, into the assets declared by actor and Chief of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Party Joseph Vijay for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea and said that it would pass detailed orders later in the day.
Case Title: Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
The Madras High Court, on Monday (April 27), disposed of a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest and custody of the prime accused in the Noida Workers Protest case, despite the rejection of a transit remand by the Tiruchirappalli Magistrate Court.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Magistrate, Gautham Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, who, despite knowing that there was no valid transit remand, had remanded the accused. The court thus held that if it went into the validity of the custody and arrest, it would have to necessarily go into the merits of the order passed by the remand magistrate in Uttar Pradesh. The bench noted that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to go into the merits, and the same would be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man seeking a cash reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation for giving information regarding an illegal import of luxury cars.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the CBI's submission that it did not have any scheme for the grant of a reward to informers. Though the petitioner argued that he had received such a reward from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the court noted that the petitioner was barking up the wrong tree by claiming such compensation from the CBI.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (28 April), quashed an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate against the Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development, I Periyasamy, in connection with an alleged housing plot allotment scam.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan quashed the ECIR after noting that the predicate offence, based on which the ECIR was registered by the ED, was already quashed by the court. The court noted that since the scheduled offence was quashed, there were no proceeds of crime, based on which the ED could pursue its case.
Case Title: K Mani v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to obtain affidavits from candidates contesting in more than one constituency, assuring that if they resign from any of the constituencies after the election, they would be liable to pay all the election expenses incurred for that particular constituency before resigning.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that as of date, there was no law in force, empowering the Election Commission of India to direct a candidate to deposit election expenses in case of resignation from one constituency. Thus, noting that such a relief could not be granted, the court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v The Director, DVAC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
The Madras High Court has ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into allegations of Rs 397 crore scam in procuring transformer tenders during the tenure of Senthil Balaji as the Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and Excise from 2021 to 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to transfer all the files connected with the case to the officer in charge of investigation, who shall be appointed within 2 weeks of the order.
The court has also asked the CBI to conduct a de novo investigation based on the materials. The court has also directed the State government, the TANGEDCO, and the DVAC to extend full cooperation to CBI for conducting an effective investigation and ensure all the documents are placed before the central agency.
Case Title: Shayee Nisha v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
The Madras High Court recently criticised a Government Order issued by the Human Resource Management Department of the State Government, restricting the maternity leave to a period of 12 weeks (3 months) for third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that there was no justification in bringing such a Government Order, which ran contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court on various occasions. The court added that the suffering of a woman is the same in all pregnancies, be it first, second, or third, and thus no discrimination should be shown in approving maternity leave.
Case Title: Balaji v. Mehaboobani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court recently appointed a Hindu couple as the legal guardians of a minor female Muslim child. In doing so, the court set aside an order passed by the Family Court in Madurai, rejecting the Hindu couple's plea to be appointed as legal guardians.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Hindu couple had been taking care of the child right from her birth. The court also noted that the child had been calling the couple father and mother and calling her own biological mother as aunty. Thus, the court noted that it would be in the best interest of the child to appoint the Hindu couple as her legal guardian.
Case Title: M Sonaimuthu v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court recently ordered police protection for conducting the Thenur Mandagapadi ceremony during the Chithirai festival in Madurai.
Highlighting the importance of the festival, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the festival represents the composite culture of Madurai by blending both Shaivite and Vaishnavite traditions, and thus symbolising practices associated with communal harmony.
The court thus underlined that no person or group should be permitted to create disorder in such festivals, in the name of rivalry. The court highlighted that devotion could not be allowed to descend into disturbance and customs cannot be converted into conflict.
Case Title: Sinora PS Ashok v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court on Thursday closed a plea for police protection filed by TVK's Harbour constituency candidate, following alleged attack by DMK Minister P. Sekar Babu and his associates.
Justice Nirmal Kumar closed the plea on being informed that police protection had already been granted to the candidate.
In his plea, the petitioner, Sinora PS Ashok, submitted that he had contested from the Harbour constituency against the DMK candidate Sekar Babu, who was currently the Minister of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in the Tamil Nadu cabinet.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Freelance Editor
Case Title: Uma Shankar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (30 April), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Uma Shankar, one of the accused in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan”, starring Vijay.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after noting the submissions of the State informing the court that there were materials against the accused and a custodial interrogation was necessary. The anticipatory bail plea was also opposed by KVN Productions, producers of the movie and the de facto complainant.
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy and another v M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court has cleared the way for the release of the Tamil movie “Dhruva Natchathiram” starring Vikram and directed by Gautham Vasudev Menon.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has ordered that an escrow account be created in the name of Kondaduvom Entertainment, a company owned by Menon. The court has directed that all the transactions that are to be done before and after the movie's release be done through the account. An advocate commissioner has also been appointed to oversee the transactions in the account.
The court passed the directions in an application filed by two creditors of Gautham Vasudev Menon and his production house, seeking to restrain the movie's release in light of pending dues. In 2023, the court passed an interim injunction order restraining the release of the movie.
Madras High Court Asks TN Govt To Include Life Of Dr. Ambedkar In School Curriculum
Case Title: G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to take necessary policy decisions to include lessons in the Social Science curriculum, including the life and contribution of Dr BR Ambedkar and the role played by him in the freedom movement and democratic nation-building.
Justice Victoria Gowri emphasised that the school system should not just teach the Constitution as dry institutional facts, but teach it through the lives of people who shaped it. The court stressed that to understand Ambedkar is to understand why the constitution must be social.
The court added that though it was not for the judiciary to tell the State to adopt a particular policy or dictate what should be included in the curriculum, it was constrained to emphasise that the constitutional value of fraternity cannot be left to the uncertainties of social transmission. The court added that it was time for the State to recognise that constitutional literacy was a component of social responsibility.
Case Title: Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the detention order passed against a YouTuber, Varaaki, noting that the State had unnecessarily targeted him.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan also directed the state to pay Rs. 50,000 to him for his illegal detention.
It may be noted that in December 2025, the court had released Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, on personal bond. During that time, the court had remarked that the state should not routinely approve the detention orders and that while detaining a person, there should be application of mind. The bench had also remarked that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue State for appropriate relief including claiming damages.
Case Title: Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court has ordered the Indian High Commission in Colombo to consider granting emergency visa to a Sri Lankan national to come to India to aid his ailing mother.
Justice M Dhandapani noted that there were no adverse materials against the person, and in such circumstances, his continued blacklisting would be disproportionate. The court also noted that the mother was a senior citizen who was in need of immediate care. Thus, citing humanitarian grounds, the court was inclined to grant him limited relief.
Case Title: P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court recently criticised the acts of certain persons who threw footwear (chappals) at devotees participating in the procession of Lord Kallazhar Temple during the Chithirai festival in Madurai.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that such acts could not be brushed aside as stray acts of hooliganism, as such acts not only affected the public order but also offended constitutional morality. The court also added that India's secular spirit did not require an indifference to religion but required the protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance.
The court observed that the principle of fraternity embodied in the preamble of the Constitution obligated the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions were celebrated in peace, dignity, and mutual respect. The court also noted that though maintenance of public order was the duty of the executive, when disruption was apprehended, judicial directions were warranted.
Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea filed by filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor seeking to reject a plaint filed against them in connection with the late actor Sridevi's property near the East Coast Road.
Noting that the cause of action raised against the trio is not sustainable, Justice TV Tamilselvi remarked that the “vexatious” claim was made only to grab the property by abusing the process of law, and the same was not permissible under law. The court thus noted that the trial judge's order, refusing to reject the plaint, was liable to be set aside.
Case Title: S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against a group of lawyers for disrupting the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No. V at Madurai.
Noting that there was no justification to quash the proceedings, Justice Victoria Gowri highlighted the importance of respect between the bar and the bench. The court remarked that the dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. The court thus highlighted that the law expected both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline.
The court also recorded appreciation for the young judicial officer for choosing to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the judicial office, though attempts were made to compromise the institutional authority.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013
Case Title: N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) in 2013.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that some of the petitioners had challenged the selection process for deciding the ranking of candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the viva voce, and thus argued that the Selection Commission was vested with excessive powers.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench observed that once a Selection Committee is formed to assess the performance of the candidates, their discretion cannot be interfered with unless serious and valid concerns are raised. In the present case, the court noted that there was no justification to the grievances raised by the petitioners, which were vague and general. The court also added that after participating in the selection process, the candidates could not challenge the same without concrete reasons.
Case Title: S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
The Madras High Court recently observed that corrective measures taken by a teacher cannot be criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Justice Victoria Gowri remarked that while offences under the POCSO Act have to be dealt with seriousness, the sanctity of the Act should also be maintained, which is to protect the genuine victims. The court noted that if a teacher performing a legitimate disciplinary function is exposed to criminal prosecution on exaggerated allegations, the Act would be misused and it would corrode the educational institution.
Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against VCK Chief Thol Thirumavalavan
Case Title: Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court has quashed an alleged hate speech case registered against Thol Thirumavalavan, chief of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that although the complaint was lodged in 2019, the final report was filed only in 2025, contrary to the three-year time frame prescribed by law. The court also noted that the prior sanction was not obtained as mandated under Section 196(1A) of the CrPC.
The court thus opined that the proceedings had to be quashed and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: P v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court has recently held that a wife going to her mother's house for delivery and remaining there after the birth of the child cannot be seen as an act of desertion when the husband was not present in the country during the time.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar also noted that the husband had made baseless allegations against the wife, saying that she was in close contact with a male person. The court noted that such acts would drive the wife to grieve over the allegation and remain at her mother's place, and the same could not be seen as desertion.
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test.
The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim order in a plea filed by former Minister R Periakaruppan alleging that one postal vote of No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai District, (from where he contested as DMK candidate), which was in his favour, had been wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency of Tiruppattur District.
The bench however made it clear that the order "should not be treated as one setting aside his winning or one confirming it". It said that a "strong prima facie case" has been made out by Periakaruppan.
Case Title: Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court recently refused ordinary leave to a convict for undergoing fertility treatment.
Dismissing a petition filed by the wife of the convict, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the court could not merely act upon the right of the convict's wife to have a child but also had to consider the interest of the child, which will have to carry the stigma throughout its life.
Noting that it cannot turn a blind eye to the reality and had to consider the welfare of the child, the court said that it was worried about the consequences exerted on the child by society. The court also pointed out that the reformative theory was focused on the convict and did not deal with his/her desire to have a child. The court underlined that the convict or his wife did not have any right to place a child in an unfortunate position for the rest of its life.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Attempt To Murder Case
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an attempt to murder case.
Granting him conditional bail, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that a person's liberty cannot be taken lightly just because the allegations are grave. The court said that when the presence of an accused can be secured through conditions, continued incarceration was not warranted.
As such the court granted bail to Shankar upon him executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Madhavaram Judicial Magistrate. The court has also asked Shankar to appear before the police daily and to co-operate with the investigation.
The case was registered against Shankar for allegedly attacking a Sub-Inspector of Police while Shankar was being brought to Puzhal prison from Oncole (Andhra Pradesh), after being arrested in connection with an alleged cheating and extortion case.
Case Title: B Gurunathan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
While granting bail to a father who was accused of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was an alarming trend where officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, etc., were insisting children to make sexual abuse allegations against their fathers.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that in many cases, the children might be approaching these authorities only to ventilate their grievances relating to the domestic discord happening between their parents. However, instead of addressing the issue appropriately, officers were compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members.
Case Title: Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths to positively consider a woman's plea to add the name of her foster parents in the birth certificate without removing the name of her biological parents.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted that the right to construct one's own identity regarding gender, familial, and societal context was a part of right to privacy. The court noted that the woman was not seeking to remove her biological parent's name from the birth certificate but only to add the name of her foster parents. The court thus noted that the woman was within her right to construct her identity in the society, which was part of her fundamental right.
Case Title: Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court has reiterated that grama natham lands (village land) that are owned by the Government should be utilised for public purposes by constructing dwelling houses and should not be left to be encroached by greedy men.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender added that the Government was empowered to regulate the natham lands and utilise them in terms of the Revenue Standing Orders for the landless or homeless.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court recently stayed a notice of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tamil Nadu directing removing/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
Noting that the notice did not specify the reasons for blocking, Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar held that when state restricts speech, the same should be through reasons and not by cryptic command. The bench remarked that political opinions cannot be removed merely because they are sharp, inconvenient, satirical, dissenting or unpalatable.
The court added that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution didn't just protest polite and agreeable speech but also protected criticism, dissent, satire, political disagreements and public debate. The court added that a democracy cannot take criticism as disorder, satire as sedition, dissent as danger or opinion as offence.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to ensure that the schools and public buildings, which are usually notified as polling booths for elections, should be made wheelchair accessible by constructing permanent ramps.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the ECI to take steps to make sure that its website was made easily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.
Case Title: M v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of adultery by his wife, stating that though there was no direct evidence of sexual intercourse, there was evidence regarding close proximity of the wife with another married man.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy, and it is very difficult to produce direct evidence of sexual intercourse to prove adultery.
Case Title: S v K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
While granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's act of marrying off their daughter without informing him would cause him mental agony and constitute mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar held that as a parent, the husband would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain, and suffering, which could never be compensated.
The court also noted that the husband's later conduct, of preventing the wife from entering the house, was also due to the mental scar that he had suffered.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an alleged extortion case.
Justice R Sakthivel granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.
The case is registered under Sections 296(b), 351(2), 308(3), 131, 115(2), 109, 353 (1)(b), and 61 (2)(b) of the BNS over allegations of Shankar demanding a sum of Rs 10,00,000 for removing an allegedly defamatory post.
Taking note of the fact that the chargesheet had been filed and taken on file, the court was inclined to grant bail and ordered accordingly. The court has however, asked Shankar to appear before the Adambakkam police daily.
Case Title: P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the recent press note of the Tamil Nadu Government regarding its decision to close 717 TASMAC liquor shops in the State, which are located within 500 meters of places of worship, educational institutions, and bus stands.
Calling it a good decision, Justice GR Swaminathan said that such policy decisions of the government could not be challenged by way of a writ petition by men who had leased their land for the setting up of TASMAC shops.
The court also recorded the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who informed the court that TASMAC would reimburse land owners, where the shops had been closed in furtherance of the policy decision.
Case Title: Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May), closed a habeas corpus plea challenging the detention of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan took note of the Government Order passed by the Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department revoking his detention.
Thus, noting that the plea has become infructuous, the court closed the plea.
Meanwhile, another plea filed by Shankar's nephew seeking to take him to a speciality hospital for comprehensive cardiac evaluation and for giving him necessary treatment under the supervision of qualified cardiologists has been posted to next week.
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May) dismissed a plea seeking to ban or regulate the recently released Tamil movie "Karuppu" starring Suriya and Trisha and directed by RJ Balaji. The plea had alleged that the movie portrayed the Indian judiciary in bad light.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that anyone could say anything in a free country like India. The court further orally remarked that the portrayal in the movie was, in fact, a matter for introspection.
Case Title: Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has held that a mother should not be made to undergo DNA test to prove her maternity while donating kidney to her child.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to permit a mother to donate one of her kidneys to her son, who was suffering from systemic hypertension chronic kidney disease stage-V and needed urgent kidney transplantation.
The court remarked that when the donor herself was saying that the recipient was her son, it was not understandable on why the request was ignored.
Case Title: R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court recently refused to permit the installation of CCTV cameras near a village lake to prevent activities like illegal fishing, earth mining, etc near it.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the village lake was a traditional resource used by the villagers, who used it for multiple purposes like bathing, swimming, and leisure activities.
The court added that these were semi-private spaces of the villagers, and CCTV surveillance in such places would be an excessive intrusion. The court also said that the state should not indulge in such intrusion without a strong justification.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Of Nine Accused Persons
Case Title: Rajesh v State and other connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of nine accused persons in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan” starring Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay.
Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the bail pleas of the accused persons – Rajesh, Selvam, Prashanth, Rajini, Srinath @ Sriram, Sanjay, Bala @ Balakrishnan, Manigandan, Ruthran. On April 30, the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai had dismissed the bail pleas of the accused.
Case Title: Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to political commentator and scientist Dr V Ponraj in a case related to alleged defamatory statements against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
Justice R Sakthivel was inclined to grant anticipatory bail after noting that Ponraj had deep rots in the society and was not likely to abscond. Thus, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary in the case, the court granted bail. However, the court has asked Ponraj to appear before the Cuddalore Police once every week and to appear and sign before the CCB Cyber Crime Wing Chennai twice every week.
While the court refrained from commenting on Ponraj's intention while making the statement, it said that Ponraj, who claimed to be a respectable person in society, should have been careful during a public interview, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.
Case title: K Surya v/s Secretary to the Government & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 27) directed Tamil Nadu's Chief Secretary to ensure that no cow or calf is slaughtered on the eve of Bakrid. It my be noted that Bakrid or Eid-ul-Zuha will be celebrated tomorrow i.e. May 28.
A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the order in a plea seeking direction to the state authorities, including the Director General of Police, to take steps to prevent the slaughter of cows in public places.
The court observed that as per Article 48 of the Constitution, the State is bound to take steps to prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The court also pointed out that cow was considered as a reverred animal during the constituent assembly debates and even during the rule of Muslim rulers, cow slaughter had been banned.
Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court, on Wednesday (May 27) that it intends to file a curative petition against the acquittal of Dashwanth, the sole accused in the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in Chennai in 2017.
The submission was made in a plea seeking directions to the state government to file such a curative petition against the acquittal of Dashwanth.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan, however, took note of the submissions made by the state government that it intended to file a curative petition in the case. Taking note of the submission, the court closed the plea.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court, on Friday (29 May), closed a plea seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the alleged sexual assault and killing of a minor girl in Sulur, Coimbatore.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that the investigation was "prima facie" moving in the right direction. When the petitioner's counsel informed the court that social media posts were being made giving details of the minor's family and other theories were being made in connection with the crime, the court said it would pass detailed orders in this aspect.
When the matter was taken up on Friday, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the State was taking best efforts in the case. The AG said that the investigation in the case (including DNA tests) was being fast-tracked and a special public prosecutor had been appointed who was instructed to give utmost attention to the case and ensure strict justice.
Case Title: Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court on Friday (May 29th), censured former Commissioner of Police and current Chief of Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, A Arun IPS for having passed a detention order against a realtor in an alleged fraud case.
While quashing the detention order, a division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the detention order was passed for extraneous reasons.
Noting that Arun habitually passed such orders which were ultimately quashed by the court, the bench said that Arun ought to know that preventive detention orders could not be passed recklessly.
Hindu Wife Removing 'Thali' Amounts To Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Grants Divorce
Case Title: V v. C
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
While upholding an order granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court observed that the removal of the Thali (mangalsutra) by a Hindu wife would amount to mental cruelty upon the husband.
The court also observed after considering the evidence, the husband's allegation that the wife converted to Christiany also cannot be thrown away.
Justice P Vadamalai thereafter said:
"From the above, it is very clear that the respondent/wife adopted Christianity as her daughter's name and her marriage to a Christian is revealed from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and hence, the allegation of conversion of religion by the respondent/wife cannot be thrown away upon consideration of the entire evidence on record. This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty".
Though the wife argued that the High Court cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court held that the same could be taken note of by the court while considering a plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Case Title: M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 2), permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking probe into alleged suppression of income by TVK chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan accepted the request of the petitioner to withdraw the plea and ordered accordingly.
The petition, filed by M Rajkumar of Chennai has sought a direction to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) to examine the materials and findings recorded in search proceedings, sworn statement recoded during the assessment proceedings and the penalty order passed under the Income Tax Act against Vijay and pass appropriate prosecution proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Muthukumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of four men in a double murder case after noting that the investigating officer had conducted a bizarre investigation, leaving out vital witnesses and not recording their statements.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case only because of a defective investigation. Taking note of judicial pronouncements to this effect, the court ordered departmental action against the investigating officer and ordered it to be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against 15 members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who had assembled unlawfully to celebrate the organisation's 100th year ceremony.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the parties had only assembled unlawfully to celebrate 100 years of the organisation and no public was affected by the same. The court remarked that the persons involved were following their rights provided by the Constitution and unlawful assembly by itself would not be an offence.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently enhanced compensation for a man who was left in a persistent vegetative state following a road accident.
Noting the advocate's failure to appeal for enhanced compensation, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that once an advocate enters appearance for a client, he is expected to offer proper legal advice, including necessity of filing cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation whenever required.
The court added that the advocate's failure to provide proper legal advise is dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the true success of the child protection laws in the state rests not merely on the number of convictions secured, but on the overall well-being of the child and the sensitivity with which the institutions treat the child who comes into the justice system.
Justice Victoria Gowri was dealing with 4 petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings which were initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. During the course of the proceedings, the court concluded that the four cases were initiated falsely, by coercing the child.
The court observed that a child, who is made to narrate a false sexual narrative at the instance of an adult may suffer emotional confusion, social fear, shame and psychological burden. The court also remarked that the investigating agencies should display highest degree of sensitivity before registering allegations under the POCSO Act.
The court thus asked the Secretary to Government (Home Department), Secretary (Directorate of Social Welfare), and the Secretary (Department of Law and Justice) to consider framing and formulating a coordinated State wide sensitisation programme titled “Singapen Sensitisation Workshop”
Case Title: Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee under the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant permission to a Bangladeshi mother to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son, who was suffering from end-stage renal chronic kidney disease.
While doing so, Justice GR Swaminathan criticised the Authorisation Committee for denying permission for transplantation on alleged suspicion about the spousal relationship between the minor's mother and father. The judge noted that the spousal relationship was irrelevant and the authorisation committee should have only considered whether the recipient was the son of the donor. The court thus held that the order was vitiated by irrelevant consideration.
Case Title: M Vigneshwaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court recently held that a dying declaration made by a person would not be unreliable merely because the person had suffered 100% burns at the time of making the declaration.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the dying declaration can be accepted where it is proved that at the time of making the statement, the declarant was "in a conscious and fit state of mind".
The bench held that the decisive test is not the extent of injuries but whether there is reliable evidence to show that the person was mentally fit.
Case Title: Nanjil Mugilan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently observed that the consent of the Central Government would be required in cases of remission only when the period of sentencing under the Central Act is still pending.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan thus held that when the period of sentence under the Central Act has been served by a convict, the approval from the Central Government is no longer necessary for granting remission by the State Government.
Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against two men for allegedly abusing a police officer and preventing him from discharging his official duty.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the final report was filed in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. The court highlighted that criminal law could not be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action.
The court said that in the present case the prosecution materials were vague and the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out against the petioners.
Case Title: D Sathishkumar v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently held that the past conduct of an accused, who was evading arrest and absconding at the time of investigation, can be considered for denying him permission to travel abroad.
Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
Madras High Court Criticises Vigilance Department For Not Probing Allegations Of TNSTCScam
Case Title: S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court has asked the Vigilance Department to probe allegations of fake records being created to show that buses were plying on roads.
While doing so, Justice B Pugalendhi criticised the Vigilance Department for not probing the matter earlier despite receiving complaints and merely forwarding the same to the Additional Chief Secretary. The court added that the department should have conducted a probe to find out whether such fraud was being conducted on other bus routes also.
The court also observed that the department, which was expected to monitor 14 lakh government employees, was functioning for namesake and filing 100 cases per year just to show that they are functioning.
Case Title: M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court recently declared former speaker Appavu as the winning candidate for the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency in Tirunelveli District for the 2016-2021 General Assembly Elections.
Noting the unfortunate 10-year delay in ordering the case due to the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, Justice G Jayachandran highlighted that when courts do not adhere to the mandate for expeditious trial as provided under the Representation of the People Act, it undermines democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.
The court added that the present case was a mockery of justice, where people of the constituency were forced to bear a person as their representative though he was not duly elected.
Case Title: Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases registered against six individuals for alleged election-related offences, citing "vague" and "generalised allegations" which were not supported by foundational facts as well as serious infirmities in the prosecution's case.
While doing so, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the courts were guardians not just against crime but against misuse of criminal process also. The court added that while democracy needs strict adherence to electoral discipline, not every election-related offence could be converted into a criminal trial.
The court said that the entire prosecution rested solely upon interested police witnesses without independent corroboration. It said that while absence of independent witnesses may not always be fatal, in election-related prosecutions occurring in crowded public spaces, the total absence of neutral testimony assumes great significance.
Case Title: Murugan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl ultimately leading to pregnancy and wherein the trial court had relied on the child's DNA report to substantiate offence of penetrative sexual assault.
The appellant claimed that neither the girl nor her parents supported the prosecution's case and the trial court had convicted the appellant only based on the DNA report of the child born to the girl.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the trial court was right in relying upon the positive DNA report to conclude that the child was born to the victim through the accused. The court noted that the DNA test laid the foundational facts of the case, which was corroborated with the statement of the victim to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court recently closed film producer Akash Bhaskaran's plea challenging the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against him in connection with an alleged money laundering linked to TASMAC.
Bhaskaran had filed the plea challenging ED's search at his premises and to quash all consequential proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a similar plea challenging the ED action against another individual was closed, granting him liberty to raise issues before the Adjudicating Authority.
In the present case also, noting that the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment of property, the court closed the plea, granting liberty to Bhaskar to raise issues before the Authority.
Case Title: Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking to condemn the relegation of Tamil Nadu's state song, “Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu”, to third position during the swearing-in ceremony of the new Chief Minister Vijay.
Notably, actor and TVK head Vijay was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State on May 10.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan permitted the withdrawal of the plea and gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Central Government circular regarding events attended by the Governor of the State.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress Sukanya for airing the defamatory statements made by notorious criminal Veerappan in a 1996 interview with investigative journalist Gopal @ Nakheeran Gopal.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu upheld the order after noting that there was malice on the part of Sun TV for not editing the defamatory part and not airing a regret in its own channel later. It may be noted that Sun TV had issued a regret in another magazine. The court noted that there was no explanation given on why the regret was published in a third-party magazine instead of airing it in the channel itself.
Case Title: XXXX v State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs 10 Lakh each as compensation to three minor boys who were victims of sexual assault by their father and paternal uncle.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanei Prasad, where the court emphasized compensation in such exceptional circumstances where the children are victims of incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent. The court thus thought it was a fit case to grant compensation since the children were subjected to assault over a period of years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder, which needed continuous therapy.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 8th), closed a plea challenging a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu police, directing the removal/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the posts in question have been deleted by the users and thus nothing survived in the matter, making it infructuous.
The petition was filed by social activist P Chockalingam, challenging the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu police under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
Case Title: Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board declaring a 240-year-old Dargah as Waqf property.
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavathi observed that for declaring a property as Waqf property, it had to be surveyed and notified as per the procedure laid down in the Waqf Act. The court added that every grave or dargah could not be termed as Waqf property and the existence of an endowment was essential. The court added that the Waqf Board cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the property is a Muslim religious institution.
Case Title: P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to furnish the election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought for by a candidate who contested from the same constituency for filing an election affidavit.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan rejected the ECI's argument that the documents could be furnished only after 45 days from the date of election. The court noted that the Representation of People Act was a self-contained code that provided the time limits within which an election petition had to be filed (45 days).
The court observed that of ECI retained the documents, the petitioner would not be able to file the Election Petition with necessary supporting documents, and his right to move the court itself would become negatory.
Case Title: Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently remitted a case back to the trial court after noting that the judgment in the case was pronounced without hearing the oral arguments of the defence side. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250]
Emphasizing the requirement of hearing the defence side during the trial, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that even if the counsel for the defence does not appear, it is for the court to take alternative steps and the case cannot be dismissed for default.
Case Title: Rajammal v The Administrator and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by a wife seeking to stop the disbursement of pensionary benefits and other service benefits to her husband over unpaid maintenance dues.
Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar observed that the High Court could not be converted into an execution court or family court. The court observed that if the wife succeeded in her maintenance case against the husband, it was upon her to initiate execution proceedings for execution of the order.
Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has observed that Tamil Nadu can claim to have achieved "true change" only when caste is eradicated from the minds of people, while emphasizing the need for sustained efforts to eliminate caste-based considerations in society.
Making the observation in a recent judgment, the Court noted that the results of the latest Assembly elections in the State demonstrated that voters could be persuaded to look beyond caste and community identities while exercising their franchise.
The Court further stressed that social transformation requires a corresponding change in public consciousness and attitudes.
Case Title: S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases against a husband's relatives under Section 498A of the IPC after noting that the allegations against the relatives were vague and unsupported by documents.
Justice Victoria Gowri underlined that criminal prosecution cannot be launched against a husband's relative merely because there is matrimonial discord among the couple.
The court highlighted that criminal process was a shield for the aggrieved and not a sword for vengeance. It added that while courts should always ensure that the wife's voice must not be silenced, it should also ensure that the relatives of the husband are not subjected to a long criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband, without materials.
Madras High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeal Against Release Of "Dhruva Natchathiram" Movie
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by creditors of actor-director Gautam Vasudev Menon, challenging an order of a single judge paving the way for the release of the much-anticipated Tamil movie "Dhruva Natchathiram".
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi has dismissed the appeals filed by K Prem Kumar and K Punniyamoorthy.
Case Title: Udayakumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
While dealing with a criminal appeal of a murder convict, the Madras High Court expressed displeasure in the manner in which the students, who had witnessed the attack on their fellow classmate by the accused, had turned hostile during trial. 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that it was disappointing to see students, who witnessed the incident, give a different version in the court.
In this backdrop, it observed that there was no use in merely expressing dissent and views on social media and unless those were translated into action, students would only become “paper tigers” in real life.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 16), dismissed a PIL seeking a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in the manner in which four MLAs from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party resigned from their posts after winning State assembly elections and joined Chief Minister Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256]
The bench has now dismissed the plea, stating that sudden realignment in political loyalty, by itself, is not an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without any supporting evidence.
The court also noted that the plea was filed on assumptions of corruption, without any evidence to prove the same. The court added that the petitioner had not given any details of transactions in connection with the alleged corruption and the plea itself was a classic example of a fishing expedition.
Madras High Court Rejects Flipkart Founders' Review Plea Against ED Show-Cause Notice In FEMA Case
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the owners of Flipkart – Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal, seeking to review an earlier order of the High Court dismissing their plea against a show-cause notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a FEMA Case.
Justice S Sounthar dismissed the review application filed by the duo
The petitioners along with some other companies had approached the High Court challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director of the ED and the show cause notices. The allegation against the petitioners was that they had contravened the provisions of Section 6 (3) (b) r/w Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 r/w Regulations 3, 4 and 5 and para-3 and para 9(1) (B) (i) of Schedule 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 and annexure – B to para 2 of Schedule – 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 r/w consolidated FDI Policies dated 01.04.2010 and 01.10.2010.
Case Title: A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court has asked the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital and other authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that the mortal remains of Akash, a 26-year-old who was allegedly killed in custodial violence, are disposed of in a dignified manner.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the body had been remaining unclaimed for almost 90 days and the family had not been receiving the mortal remains despite judicial orders. The court observed that when sufficient opportunity had been given to the family, the court was left with no other option but to ask the State to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Name : M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that employee who had been promoted before completing the qualifying period for grant of Special Grade could not claim such benefits by delaying the assumption of charge of the promotional post.
Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in assets declared by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay in his election affidavit.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the bench had previously dismissed a batch of pleas seeking similar relief.
It may be noted that in April 2026, the bench had issued notice on the plea after noting that the alleged discrepancy of Rs 100 crore in the two affidavits filed by Vijay was an irregularity.
Case Title: Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking directions to Income Tax and election authorities to probe alleged irregularities in financial declarations made by BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan in her election affidavits filed in 2024 and in 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261]
The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting the bench's previous orders in a similar plea.
Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in the assets declared by former Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and current Leader of Opposition Udayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the High Court could not issue such directions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While setting aside an order of a single judge directing Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a group of students to continue their course and to attend the examinations despite a shortage of attendance, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in classrooms.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that online classes would not be a substitute for physical mode of learning. The court added that AI tools like ChatGPT could never be equated with a qualified teacher and cannot teach aspects of integrity and morality, which are important aspects of the legal profession.
The court observed that studying law connects students to society and gives them an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. The court added that legal education was not just a means to make money but requires a commitment to society. The court added that only classroom debates and dynamic social discussions would help in building legal ideas.
Madras High Court Stays OTT Release Of Telugu Dubbed Version Of "Drishyam 3"
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), restrained the makers of Malayalam movie “Drishyam 3” from releasing the Telugu-dubbed version of the movie on OTT platforms.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu passed the interim order on a plea moved by film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd. The company had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director and their agents, employees, assignees, licensees, and everyone claiming through them from infringing the company's exclusive copyright to remake and exploit the movie in Telugu language, by releasing the dubbed version of the movie in Telugu, anywhere in the world.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to all Returning Officers involved in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has dismissed the plea filed by Arjunan Sampath, founding President of the Indu Makkal Katchi. The court underlined that it could not use its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to micro-manage the election process. The bench added that any grievance relating to disqualification or false declaration of a candidate should be redressed by filing an election petition.
'Coimbatore Communally Sensitive': Madras High Court Stops Construction Of Church Near Temple
Case Title: Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently ordered a temporary injunction restraining the construction of a Church near a Mariyamman Temple in Coimbatore District.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out when a large church was proposed to be constructed near a temple, despite opposition from the majority Hindu community.
The court also noted that the Church was proposed to be constructed on a public road. The court thus noted that the authorities should not have permitted the construction of the church on a road, when there was vigorous opposition from the Hindu community. The court added that if there was a right and there was unreasonable opposition, the State could go to any extent to uphold the right. However, in the present case, the court opined that there was no such right to construct church in the road.
Case Title: Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court recently refused to set aside an order of a single judge dismissing a student's plea asking Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to grant her course completion certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on repayment of fee, which was seized by NIA for alleged terror links. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the fee paid by the student during her MBBS course was seized by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), holding that the fee was funded through Maoist activities.
The bench observed that if the student was in fact innocent, she could approach the Special Court for releasing the seized funds. The court added that the college could not be expected to litigate against the NIA to retrieve the fee.
Case Title: Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High Court has observed that the impact of hormonal changes during teenage years can be a relevant factor while deciding the sentence in cases arising out of romantic relationships, even though consent or a romantic relationship is no defence under the POCSO Act.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan reduced the life sentence imposed on the convict, who was hardly 19 years old at the time of commission of the offence, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Case Title: P Palanikumar v R Selvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Evidence Act enables a judge to ask any question that he pleases during trial with respect to any relevant or irrelevant fact during the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the judge is obliged to exercise the sweeping power available to him to pose questions and clear out any suspicion that he has. The court added that the judge should not sit like a sphinx during trial but is expected to engage with the bar through dialogue. The court added that this exercise is also an important facet of the principle of natural justice.
Case Title: Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (June 18), dismissed a plea seeking a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure fair, uniform, transparent and uninterrupted environment for students writing the NEET UG 2026 examination. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and it would not be appropriate for the HC to intervene in the matter during the pendency of the case.
The petition, filed by Venkatesawaran from Krishnagiri District of Tamil Nadu, had sought a direction to the authorities to formulate a comprehensive SOP to ensure that the students get prescribed time to write the examination across all examination centres.
Case Title: N v N
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
While refusing to grant divorce to a husband who claimed to have suffered mental cruelty due to his wife's alleged undisclosed Schizophrenia condition, the Madras High Court held that making such unfounded allegations regarding the mental health of the wife not just amounts to cruelty but is an intrusion into the wife's privacy and personal autonomy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that making reckless and humiliating allegations against a spouse, touching upon mental illness or emotional instability, instead of extending emotional support, would deeply wound the dignity, self-worth, and emotional well-being of the spouse.
Case Title: K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Allowing a 23-year-old woman to terminate her 15-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court recently observed that the law did not compel motherhood and a woman should have the freedom to decide if she wants to continue her pregnancy or not. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272]
Justice Victoria Gowri also observed that the Constitution places trust in the choice of a woman and considers her autonomy as an indispensable part of her dignity. The court added that the courts are duty-bound to protect this dignity and autonomy.
Case Title: R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Granting relief to a mother pursuing her LLM degree, the Madras High Court recently held that the academic timelines cannot be strictly applied to a woman who was undergoing pregnancy and childbirth. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273]
Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar directed the Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University and the Principal of Madurai Government Law College to permit the woman to submit her dissertation and participate in the viva voce examination in June 2026. While doing so, the court emphasised that educational institutions were expected to approach such situations with compassion, fairness and sensitivity.
The court added that reasonable accommodation should be given to a woman so that she is not deprived of her educational opportunities solely due to pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal responsibilities. The court added that a balance must be struck to ensure that motherhood does not become an obstacle in the completion of education.
Case Title: Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBCID probe into the attack on V Suresh, Senior Advocate and General Secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties by persons allegedly associated with quarry operators during a public hearing. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274]
Criticising the investigation done by the State police into the matter, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the State had acted in a biased manner and had conducted the investigation without properly examining the organisers, participants or the injured persons and had hurriedly filed the final report. Noting that the right to a fair investigation was part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that it was a fit case to transfer the investigation.
Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable.
The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision.
Case Title: Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
A 5-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity which cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to pendency of appeal. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice CV Karthikeyan, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observations while dealing with a reference made to it for deciding the following question of law:
1) Whether leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, can be granted to a prisoner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when his appeal against conviction is pending either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court?
2) Whether the power to exempt under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 can be exercised by the State to grant leave to a prisoner outside the scope of the said Rules when his appeal against conviction is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1961 SC 112?
Case Title: Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification refusing to grant a certificate to the movie 'Lakshmi Lawrence Kadhal'. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277]
Justice R Kalaimathi noted that the CBFC and the examining committee had, in unison, concluded that the movie was violative of guideline 2(xii) in several places and was not suitable for public exhibition.
The court held that the Board more conscious about the need to protect the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the Indian citizens. The court also noted that Board had clearly stated the reasons for refusing certification. Thus, finding no infirmity, the court refused to interfere with the CBFC's order.
Case Title: PK Sekar Babu v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA PK Sekar Babu has withdrawn a plea filed by him seeking to quash an FIR registered by the police against him for allegedly attacking the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Sinora Ashok, who contested the election from Harbuor Constituency.
The plea was withdrawn after Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, who heard the plea on Thursday (26th June), said that he was not convinced with the grounds raised for quashing the FIR and was inclined to dismiss Sekar Babu's plea. Following this, a request was made to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed.
Case Title: Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has declared as unconstitutional a Government Order which allowed a person who converted to Islam from Backwards Classes, Most Backwards Classes, Denotified Communities, or Scheduled Castes to be treated as BC (Muslim) and be issued with a community certificate as belonging to one of the 7 notified sects for availing reservation upon conversion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji held that the GO was strictly against the judicial pronouncements made by the High Court and the Supreme Court, holding that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim.
The court also remarked that when Christian Missionaries and Islamic preachers had, throughout centuries, claimed that their religion offered social equality unlike Hinduism, which propagated caste, it was not appropriate to claim that Islam also had hierarchy.
Case Title: M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has struck down Section 34C of the Registration Act 1908, inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2026 after finding it to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280]
Section 34C of the Registration Act dealt with the production of original documents. As per the Section, the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the executant produces the previous original documents by which the right over the subject property was acquired by him, along with the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the subject property, obtained 10 days prior to the date of presentation.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that the provision was nothing but a resurrection of old Rules (Rule 55A), which was already held unconstitutional by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court held that the new provision brought in restrictions on a person dealing with his own property, which was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Case Title: Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has issued extensive guidelines for magistrates who are dealing with applications for custody and parentage under Section 4(iii) (a) (II) of the Surrogacy Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281]
As per the Act, no surrogacy or surrogacy procedures shall be conducted, undertaken, performed or initiated, unless the Director or the person in charge of the surrogacy clinic and the person qualified to do so are satisfied that the intending couple is in possession of a certificate of essentiality issued by the appropriate authority, including the order of the court.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the guidelines are intended to bring in uniformity in judicial practice and avoid unnecessary hardship to the couples, the surrogate mother, and the child.
The court also emphasised that while processing the applications, the Magistrate's role is limited to ensuring voluntariness, statutory compliance, and welfare of the child and the Magistrate was not expected to sit in appeal over findings by the Medical Board except in case of fraud.
Case Name: The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that an employee appointed belatedly due to administrative delay, but selected along with a batch before the cut-off date, is entitled to the old pension scheme (as applicable to that batch) and cannot be switched to the new pension scheme after two decades.
It was further noted that the delay in making her appointment was exclusively attributable to the authorities and not to the employee. It was held by the Division Bench that merely because she was appointed belatedly on account of the inaction of the authorities, the right conferred upon her could not be taken away, especially after a period of two decades.
It was held that the issuance of show cause notice to bring her under CPS was unsustainable
Case Title: R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has recently held that morphing a woman's image and uploading it on social media is not a harmless prank but a calculated assault on her privacy, reputation, and emotional security. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283]
Justice Victoria Gowri thus directed the police to conduct immediate verification and register an FIR with respect to a complaint regarding the morphing of a woman's photos. The court held that just because the woman was in Singapore, where she was employed, her physical absence should not dilute the duty of Indian Law enforcement agencies.
The court observed that complaints of this nature cannot be taken as a mere private dispute. The court observed that online sexual harassment, morphing, creation of fake profiles, etc was a serious intrusion into the bodily privacy and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Stays Inspector's Suspension, Finds DVAC Order Prima Facie 'Motivated'
Case Title: Vimala v The Director of Vigilance
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court has stayed the suspension of an Inspector of Police after noting that the suspension order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.
Justice PT Asha thus granted an interim stay till July 9, on a petition filed by Vimala, who was working as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, DVAC.
Case Title: S Rameshkumar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings against three officials who were working with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department in a case for allegedly misappropriating temple funds.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that there was no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the case against the three officials. Thus, noting that continued proceedings would be malafide and an abuse of the process of law, the court allowed their pleas to quash the case against them.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court has confirmed the death sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting three minor girls aged 6, 7, and 8 years. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286]
Confirming the death sentence imposed by the Tirunelveli POCSO Court, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the crime committed by the man was so heinous and devoid of human conscience that it demanded a judicial response which mirrored society's collective abhorrence. The bench added that sparing the life of such a person would be an act of misplaced mercy.
The court also observed that the case fell within the exception of rarest of the rare where an alternative punishment could not be given. The court added that the law must possess a spine of steel while dealing with persons who prey on children to satisfy their dark instinct. The court remarked that the judgment should serve as a warning that no one who manipulates, terrorises and destroys the youth was immune from law.