Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194 NOMINAL INDEX 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...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
NOMINAL INDEX
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
REPORTS
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.