LiveLaw Madras High Court Monthly Digest: July 2026 [Citation 287 to 361]
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 NOMINAL INDEX Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288 Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289 K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290 V v. S, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
NOMINAL INDEX
Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
V v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
S Divya v The Registrar General and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
V Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
All India Private Educational Institutions Association v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
EV Velu v The State of Tamil Nadu and EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Suji @ Kasi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Dr Ponraj v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
M v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Krishnamoorthy v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
Mugilan v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
P. v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
R. Pradeep Kumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
B Jagadeeshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
XXX v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
U v M, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
J. Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Mandai @ Manogaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
REPORTS
Case Title: Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the authorities of the Sri Arulmighu Abishta Varatharajaperumal Temple in Thanjavur District to permit temple entry to an American woman who had converted to Hinduism. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conduct of the woman clearly established her adherence to Hinduism. Thus, the court said that the woman was to be treated as a Hindu and not be denied recognition merely because of her Christian name. The court added that all rights and obligations that were available to a Hindu woman devotee would be applicable to the woman also.
The court also observed that Hinduism was an inclusive and accommodating faith which did not prescribe any mandatory formal ceremony of conversion.
Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges, after noting that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment.
The court remarked that this would send a wrong message to the public, especially when the Rules clearly provide for direct recruitment in case the in-service candidates did not qualify for recruitment.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has dismissed the plea filed by YouTuber journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against the current head of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Arun IPS, in light of the recent remarks against him by the High Court. The court had reserved orders in the plea earlier today. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that public interest litigation is a tool intended to reach marginalised and vulnerable segments of society and not a tool for vindicating personal animosity.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 2nd), dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea, effectively refusing to interfere with the private complaint filed by Anandan. The court had reserved orders on the plea on June 25th.
Case Title: V v. S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
While affirming an order of dissolution of marriage, the Madras High Court recently held that a husband questioning the paternity of child born in marriage and asking the wife to undergo a DNA examination would be mental cruelty on the wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that when the wife came to the matrimonial home after the birth of the child, the husband had questioned her on who the father of the child was. The bench held that such a question would have shocked the wife to the extreme and it directly affected her honour and self-respect.
Case Title: Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
While dealing with a plea to ensure that a temple procession is carried out through an area predominantly inhabited by members of Scheduled Caste community, the Madras High Court recently observed that constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure that religious practices, customs, etc do not result in caste-based exclusion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that Article 17 of the Constitution does not merely prohibit untouchability but any disability imposed on a person solely on the basis of caste.
The court highlighted that the right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The court observed that no religious practice or customary usage could survive constitutional scrutiny if it violated equality, dignity or fraternity.
Case Title: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court has kept in abeyance a single judge's order staying the suspension of an Inspector of Police (DVAC). The single judge had stayed the suspension order, noting that the order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan kept in abeyance the stay order after being informed that the single judge had passed the order solely on the basis of submissions made by the Inspector, without verifying the facts.
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 3rd), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by DMK MLA Anita R Radhakrishnan in a case registered against him for making objectionable statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. During the course of the hearing, the judge orally remarked that Radhakrishnan, being a member of the legislative assembly, should not have made such statements.
The court also orally remarked that the State of Tamil Nadu has been seeing leaders who have come from the cine industry since 1967. The court added that these leaders were elected by the people, and in such circumstances, the statement made by Radhakrishnan was unwarranted.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to provide police protection to AIADMK MLA CV Shanmugam in light of continuous life threats faced by him. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295].
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that Shanmugam has made out a prima facie case for grant of police protection, to protect his life and limb.
Woman Govt Employee Entitled To Only 12 Weeks' Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Divya v The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman government employee can be given only twelve weeks of maternity leave for the birth of the third child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel observed that a recent Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu government, which amended Fundamental Rule 101(A) of the Tamil Nadu Government, applicable to government employees, was in line with the order of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi v Government of Tamil Nadu, which had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks.
Noting that the High Court could not grant relief which was over and beyond the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Rules, the court dismissed the plea of a woman, seeking 365 days' maternity leave for her third child.
Case Title: Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
While quashing a sedition case registered against a publishing house for publishing a book which contained a statement that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation, the Madras High Court held that such a statement could not be seen as hatred against the nation or the government in the present day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that India is unified by heart and soul, and such statements could at best cause annoyance in the present social milieu, and the person making such a statement would only be seen as a person having mental health issues. The court added that such a sentence, in the present day, would not excite any hatred among the public.
Case Title: Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Joint Secretary of the External Affairs Ministry and the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs for failing to assist the court in a habeas corpus plea, in connection with the release of a man who was convicted in a Narcotics case in Sri Lanka. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298].
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the man had been repatriated to India and his sentence had been adapted to one under the Indian Law. However, there was no material to show that consent was obtained from Sri Lanka before the same.
The court also noted that despite repeated enquiries, the counsel was not able to show any communication, and in the absence of materials, the court could not infer that the Sri Lankan government had accepted or informed about the adoption of the sentence under Indian law. The court thus deemed it fit to impose costs.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras High Court has recently stressed the need to appoint a separate Vigilance Commissioner to advise the government on administrative challenges and steps to be taken to prevent corruption in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299]
The court added that corruption can be eradicated only through consistent action, and this could be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that at present, there was no separate Vigilance Commissioner for the State of Tamil Nadu and a senior officer heading a major sensitive department was holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner. The court remarked that a government which aims to be corruption-free should have an independent Vigilance Commissioner.
Case Title: Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300
The Madras High Court has observed that the provisions related to search provided under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are mandatory only if the place to be searched is a residential premises. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300]
Justice R Vijayakumar held that the mandatory provisions of search without a warrant would not be mandatory when the search is to be conducted at a commercial space.
The court also added that the object of the provision is to protect the privacy of the victim and to prevent disrepute that may be caused to the inmates of a building where a search was to be conducted as per the Act. The court made it clear that the provision is not meant to protect the right of the accused. The court thus refused to quash an FIR on the basis that the search was conducted without witnesses.
Case Title: M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301
The Madras High Court recently observed that any person who knowingly aids in importing trash to the country is not just committing an offence under the Environment Protection Act but also directly challenging the country's sovereignty. The court added that there could not be a more aggravated form of deshdroh than throwing trash on the country. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301]
Talking about “waste colonialism”, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that when developed countries dump solid municipal waste to developing countries, it not only violates international treaty obligations but also results in serious environmental degradation.
Social Boycott Over Inter-Caste Marriage: Madras High Court Orders Police Protection, RDO Inquiry
Case Title: Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302
The Madras High Court has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (Mayiladuthurai) to enquire into a complaint filed by a man alleging that he was socially boycotted by his villagers after he performed an inter-caste marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the RDO to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to the village headmen and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks. The court also directed the police to complete the investigation in a case registered based on the man's complaint and to give him police protection.
Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303
The Madras High Court recently held that an advocate cannot file a writ petition seeking out-of-turn listing of his cases before the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that if every advocate is allowed to file such pleas against the registry, the court would be flooded with litigation, paralysing the administration of justice.
The court added that though it was sympathetic to the professional anxieties of the lawyer who was answerable to the client, a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be used as an administrative tool to bypass the established listing procedure.
Case Title: V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304
The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of former DMK Minister Duraimurugan from Katpadi assembly constituency during the 2021 assembly elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304].
While dismissing the plea filed by the AIADMK candidate in the constituency, V Ramu, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the plea had become infructuous as the term of the Assembly had already ended and the new government has been formed.
The judge noted that when an election petition was filed on grounds other than corruption, the petition would be rendered infructuous after the expiry of the term of the assembly. The court noted that since both Duraimurugan and Ramu had lost in the fresh elections and both had lost the MLA seat, the plea had become infructuous.
Caste Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 8) granted anticipatory bail to DMK MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar in a case lodged over allegations of offering ₹35 crore bribe to a TVK MLA in an alleged attempt to influence his vote for Assembly Speaker. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305]
The court granted anticipatory bail to Balaji and his brother, subject to certain conditions. The court further asked the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer daily until further orders and to cooperate with the investigation.
Case Title: All India Private Educational Institutions Association v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306
The Madras High Court has held that private unaided schools are bound to display their fee structure at the entrance. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306]
Relying on the provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, Justice M Dhandapani held that the Rules mandate displaying details of infrastructure available, staff strength, pupils strength, seats available for each standard, fees fixed and other facilities available if any, and the same should be updated in the notice board.
The court thus observed that though private schools are not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, they cannot wriggle out of their responsibility to display the fee details, which they are mandated to do as per the Act and Rules.
Case Title: EV Velu v The State of Tamil Nadu and EV Velu v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 9), stayed a lookout circular issued against former DMK Minister EV Velu in connection with a Vigilance case alleging corruption in laying of roads while he was acting as Minister for Public Works. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307]
The LOC has been stayed on the condition that Velu appears before the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on July 15 for enquiry.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan also directed DVAC not to take any coercive action against Velu till July 28 and directed the department to file its counter in a plea filed by him for quashing the FIR and subsequent LOC.
DVAC had registered an FIR against the former Minister and others on June 25, 2026, based on a complaint filed by the NGO Arappor Iyakkam in 2022, alleging that money was paid to a contractor before work began. It was alleged that there was corruption in the allotment of funds for road infrastructure projects.
Step-Son Not Eligible To Claim Family Pension Under Railway Pension Rules: Madras High Court
Case Title: Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308
The Madras High Court has held that a stepson is not eligible to claim family pension under the Railway Rules. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, family pension could be granted only to persons who fell under the definition of “family” as provided under the Act. Noting that a stepson is not included in the definition of “family”, the court held that he could not claim a family pension.
Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 10), permitted the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) led state government to give government jobs to families of victims who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. The bench, however, said that the appointments would be temporary and subject to judicial review. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel of the Madurai bench observed that it would be extremely narrow of the court to interfere with a policy decision of the government. The bench thus permitted the state to proceed with a public function, scheduled to be held at 3 pm today, to give appointment letters to the families of the deceased.
Case Title: Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310
The Madras High Court on Friday (July 10) refused to halt the release of upcoming Tamil movie "Idhayam Murali" on a plea filed by filmmaker Sudha Kongara over unpaid remuneration of Rs. 8.39 crores for her work in connection with the Tamil movie “Parasakthi”. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310]
Justice K Kumaresh Babu also refused to reserve all records of revenue generated from the movie "Parasakthi" on the director's plea. The court has instead referred the matter for arbitration and appointed Justice R Subramanian (retd) as the Arbitrator.
Sudha has moved the court against Dawn Pictures seeking payment of Rs 8.39 crore along with an interest of 12% from February 8, 2026. The amount has been claimed as a measure for securing a claim amount till the passing of an arbitral award.
No Legal Bar On Deploying Female Teachers To Govt Aided Boys School: Madras High Court
Case Title: Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules do not prohibit appointing a female teacher in an all-boys school. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311]
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that an aided school could not object to the deployment of a woman teacher merely on the ground that it was a boys' school and did not have the infrastructure to accommodate a woman teacher.
The court observed that in absence of any statutory bar, such objection was not legally valid and the same could not be relied on for refusing to implement the deployment order.
Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312
The Madras High Court has restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bye-elections in Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies till July 31st [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim orders on a plea filed by Venkatachalapathy, seeking to declare the vacancies in these constituencies as not “clear vacancies” since election petitions concerning these constituencies were pending before the court.
Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court recently observed that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made the observation after noting the excess waste that was being dumped in the Tamirabarani river by devotees who came there to perform rituals for the departed. The court directed the authorities to ensure that the river does not get polluted through the rituals. However, noting that the issue involved the religious sentiments of Hindus, the court was not inclined to pass any orders without hearing the stakeholders.
The court also added that though believers had the right to do something which was spiritually beneficial to them, such right should not violate the rights of others in society. The court highlighted that the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health.
Case Title: P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently permitted members of the Adi Dravidar community, a scheduled caste community, to perform the Ninth Day Mandakapadi (temple pooja) during the Chithirai festival in Arulmighu Sri Moongil Ayyanar Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314]
Justice L Victoria Gowri held that the Constitution does not recognise any hierarchy among the devotees based on birth. The court added that though courts usually exercise restraint in matters concerning religious practices, such restraint could not be used to perpetuate practices which offend the constitutional guarantees such as equality, dignity and fraternity.
Case Title: Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the appointment of 54 Junior Assistants in the Coimbatore Corporation after noting that the entire selection process was flawed and tainted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar held that recruitment to public services should inspire public confidence.
The court noted that there was no selection committee constituted but only a verification committee headed by an Assistant Commissioner to verify the documents of the candidates, which was unknown to the service rules. Thus, the court noted that there was no valid selection committee as per the Service Rules or any procedure to assess the candidates were followed to assess the suitability and eligibility of the candidates.
The court emphasised that equal opportunity in public employment was a constitutional mandate. The court added that the tainted selection process was a ground to vitiate the entire selection process. The court also remarked that illegality in selection was not just a ground to vitiate the selection but also had larger repercussions in society.
Case Title: Suji @ Kasi v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
While dismissing the appeal of a man against his conviction in a case of sexual assault by intimidation using intimate images, the Madras High Court appealed to young women not to share their intimate photos or videos online, no matter how deep the affection may appear. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316]
Considering the public importance involved in the issue, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan issued the advisory in English, Hindi and Tamil languages and also expressed regret in not being able to translate the portion in all regional languages. The court added that once the intimate materials are shared online, there was a possibility that the same could be misused, leading to irreversible consequences.
Case Title: The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to clear the travel expenses of a lawyer who was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that when an independent advocate was appointed to a highly sensitive prosecution, he was performing a vital public duty. The court added that the State could not expect the advocate to pay for the fuel when he had to travel hundreds of kilometres for the case, as that would itself swallow his professional fee.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court has closed a plea seeking a probe into alleged donations sought 'fraudulently' through the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) NaMo app and website. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318]
The petitioner had also sought a direction to the CBI or the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to register an FIR and initiate legal action against the party, former National President JP Nadda, the Chief Complaints Officer of the Namo App, Amit Malviya, and all others allegedly involved in the NaMo app special micro donation online scandal.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan closed the plea after Special Public Prosecutor for CBI informed the court of having closed the complaint made by the petitioner since it did not fall under the purview of CBI. Thus, the court was inclined to close the present petition also.
Case Title: B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court recently held that a trial court's refusal to entertain an application filed by the accused under Section 217 CrPC seeking to recall the witnesses after alteration of charge, would strike at the very root of procedural fairness. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319]
Justice Victoria Gowri held that though the provision gives liberty to the court to refuse to recall a witness if the same is sought to delay the process, such discretion should be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The court held that it was required to first receive the petition, number it, and then adjudicate it on its merits.
Case Title: Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
The Madras High Court recently held that residents of one village cannot claim a right of burial in another village unless the same has the character of a customary right. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan thus refused relief for a group of villagers who had sought burial rights in a crematorium in another village. The court said that the villagers had not established a right under Article 25 of the Constitution and had only canvassed the plea based on convenience. The court noted that the balance of convenience could not be used to establish an enforceable right.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently held that an employee, facing departmental proceedings for charges of corruption, could not claim promotion as a matter of right merely because his name was included in the panel for promotion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321].
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules 2016 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stipulate that only an officer with clean records should be promoted to a higher post. The court thus held that if any tainted officer is promoted only on the ground that his name was included in the panel despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same would be against the object of the law.
Madras High Court Upholds FIR Against Commentator V Ponraj Over Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters
Case Title: Dr Ponraj v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), dismissed a plea filed by political commentator V Ponraj seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for making 'derogatory' comments against women supporters of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. The court had reserved orders on July 13. The court observed that Ponraj, being a person of considerable standing in society, should have exercised restraint while making such public comments. The court added that a person of such scientific eminence bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and such standing should not be taken as a defence to quash the FIR.
Case Title: M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), closed a plea filed by a lawyer and Joint Secretary of the District Advocates Wing (Villupuram District) of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party alleging corruption in the appointment of Government Advocates in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323]
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the appointments presently made were temporary, for a period of 6 months, and that the state was processing the applications received by candidates to be appointed as Law Officers in the subordinate courts.
Case Title: M v B
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court recently held that materials, including WhatsApp chats and screenshots, which allegedly show a parent's drug use, procurement of narcotic substances, and association with persons involved in such activity would directly have a bearing on assessing the parent's fitness while dealing with a guardianship application, and the same could not be excluded merely on the ground of such parent's privacy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324]
Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the welfare of the child was paramount and a matter of public concern, and thus such materials should not be excluded merely because they originated in a private communication.
Case Title: J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking CBI probe into complaints of poaching of MLAs in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325]
The petition was filed by an advocate from Tiruppur, in light of the recent allegations made by a TVK MLA that he was offered Rs. 35 Crore at the behest of another political party, to vote against the Speaker in a proposed no-confidence motion.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that transferring the investigation to the CBI was an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court held that the investigation could be transferred only when the local investigation was paralyzed or compromised. In the present case, the court noted that there was nothing to show that the local police were acting in bad faith.
Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike
Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against an agriculturist for holding a hunger strike against the continuous lodging of criminal cases against their Farmers' Association leader. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326]
Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that there was no material to show that the persons had caused any inconvenience to the general public. The court also highlighted that raising slogans and showing protest will not be an offence, as showing protest itself is a hallmark of democracy, protected under the Constitution.
Case Title: Mugilan v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a youth who had recklessly replied to a police officer who was on rounds during night patrol. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the allegations against him were not made out and that continuing the trial would be a futile exercise. The court also took note of the unconditional apology tendered by him and observed that the prosecution need not be continued.
Case Title: The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that police officers, medical practitioners, or any professional appearing before the court to depose as a witness should come in prescribed uniform and maintain integrity, discipline and devotion to duty. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar added that the judicial officer should strictly ensure that the professionals maintain discipline inside the court halls. The bench added that if the officers were found to engage in indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behaviour, the judicial officer should file a complaint before the competent authority for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings.
The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all police personnel across the State, directing the police officers attending the courts to wear proper uniform and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failing which disciplinary action would be taken.
Case Title: Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently observed that a child victim in POCSO cases cannot be called to the court repeatedly and made to relive the trauma. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that society does not often understand the mental trauma that a child experiences when subjected to sexual harassment. The court added that though the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act provides stringent punishment for sexual assault of children, the implementation of the Act itself should not become a source of trauma for the child.
The court observed that the purpose of the POCSO Act was to protect the children. However, the child still had to undergo the ordeal of reliving the trauma while disclosing the incident to the parents or close relative, while being interviewed by the Child Welfare Committee member, while interacting with the Physicians and experts on medical examination, while recording a statement, while being taken to the Magistrate to record a statement under Section 164, and while being examined before the court. The court noted that these instances themselves would cause trauma to the child.
Case Title: Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently observed that a Magistrate is not expected to merely act as a post office and accept a closure report filed by the police stating that a case was undetected or there was a mistake of fact.
The court emphasised that the Magistrate was expected to ensure that the police investigated all the relevant aspects before filing the “undetected” closure report. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the Magistrate cannot dismiss a protest petition mechanically and, while considering the protest petition, was required to examine whether the closure report had dealt with material aspects.
Case Title: Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently held that disputes relating to repayment of pending professional fees are not public in nature and assume the character of private civil disputes. The court thus held that an advocate cannot file writ petitions for recovering such pending professional fee from client. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that a writ was an extraordinary remedy which was designed to correct constitutional overreaches, failure of public duty, and arbitrary use of state power. The court added that it could interfere in contract matters only when there was glaring arbitrariness and an absolute admission of liability.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 22) dismissed petitions filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother alleging police harassment in connection with pending investigations against them. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332]
While dismissing the plea, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan orally remarked that the relief sought for in the plea was premature and that the police could not be prevented from investigating if there was material.
Balaji had approached the court seeking direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of search, enquiry or investigation, and if his presence was required in any pending or proposed case, to issue proper written notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as mandated in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.
DMK's Periakaruppan Withdraws Plea In Madras High Court Challenging TVK MLA's Victory By One Vote
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court has dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Periakaruppan, DMK's candidate in Tirupattur Constituency, against the victory of TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court had permitted Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea pending before the High Court after he filed an election petition challenging Sethupathi's victory. Taking note of this, the court allowed Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea and closed it.
Case Title: R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court recently refused to regularise the appointment of temporary stenotypists, typists, and junior assistants in the District Judiciary across the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar emphasised that the temporary appointment could not be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. The court remarked that the judicial department is expected to initiate steps to ensure that the sanctioned posts are made available and are filled up by conducting a recruitment process on a regular basis.
The court made it clear that all appointments made to public posts should be strictly as per the constitutional scheme. The court also remarked that irregular, illegal and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable service rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who aspire to secure public employment. The court also remarked that allowing such back-door appointment to continue constitutional sin.
Case Title: PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an illegal mining case registered against a group of quarry operators, accused of causing a loss of Rs 7,237 crore to the State exchequer. The court added that the trial in the case was pending for almost 14 years due to delay facilitated through the "unholy nexus" between former public officials, politicians and the quarry operators. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan also took note of the new government in the State and the usual practice of appointing Special Public Prosecutors for special cases after the formation of the new government. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to the Government to constitute a special public prosecution team to effectively conduct the prosecution and ensure that every endeavour is made to conclude the trial within 3 months.
Case Title: U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court recently upheld the detention order passed by Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), expelling two students accused of kidnapping another student of the College and demanding a ransom of Rs. 2 Lakh. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the institute's code of conduct prohibited students from engaging in any form of misconduct, including off-campus activities that could affect the university's interests and reputation, and also permitted the university to expel students permanently.
The court also noted that after the crime of kidnapping was registered against the students, it was the duty of the college to take action and ensure a free and conducive environment for students to undergo the course. The court added that the other students could not attend college in a state of limbo and fear.
Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337]
Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing.
The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed.
Madras High Court Directs Two Police Officers To Pay ₹1 Lakh Each For Failing To Register Dowry FIR
Case: P. v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed two police personnel— an Inspector and a Sub Inspector, of an All Women Police Station to pay Rs. 1,00,000 each as compensation to the father of woman, for closing a dowry complaint without registering an FIR despite disclosure of cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338]
“The lapse committed by respondents 2 and 3 [police officials] cannot be ignored, since their failure to register a case despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences resulted in avoidable hardship and prejudice to the petitioner,” Justice L Victoria Gowri said in her order.
Both officials had already been placed under suspension.
Taking note of the remorse expressed by the respondents and the suspension already undergone by them, the court however directed that no further departmental proceedings be initiated against the respondents, observing that the court was “satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met by the disciplinary action already undergone by them coupled with the payment of compensation directed herein.”
Case Title: R. Pradeep Kumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of watching the illegally released copy of Chief Minister Vijay's “Jana Nayagan” movie online, before its release on Friday. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339]
Justice C Kumarappan noted that the only allegation against the man was that he had watched the movie illegally and no overt act had been attributed against him. The court also noted that the final report had already been filed in the case and other co-accused had already been granted bail, though the same had been challenged. The court was thus inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recently observed that an election petition challenging the victory of a candidate can be filed only by an elector who belonged to the same constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340]
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus dismissed an election petition filed by a voter against the victory of DMK's Sethil Balaji from Coimbatore South constituency. The court noted that the petition was more in the nature of a public interest litigation as the petitioner was not a voter in the constituency from which Balaji contested in the elections. Noting that an election petition cannot substitute for PIL, the court dismissed the plea.
The court noted that if the word “elector” was given a broader meaning, any elector of any constituency could question the election of a candidate from another constituency. The court also added that such a broader meaning would open a Pandora's box as election petitions would galore after every assembly election.
Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 27), ordered the Director General of Police to provide protection to retired IAS officer U Sagayam, facing life threats since he probed alleged mining irregularities across the State of Tamil Nadu
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that Sagayam's evidence was crucial for the trial of illegal mining cases and that he was facing life threats while going to courts for deposing as a witness. The court thus directed the DGP to provide police protection to Sagayam, whenever he is going to Court, with at least one gunman.
Meanwhile, State has been asked to review his application for restoring police protection expeditiously.
Case Title: S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently held that merely uttering the word “Hindu Terrorism” will not attract the offence of provocation when the same was not followed by any act on the part of the person commenting. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus quashed a criminal case registered against a man for allegedly making provocative speech during a public meeting.
The court noted that the speech was made in 2017 and no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial and continuing the investigation. The court noted that the man had only used the inappropriate word of “Hindu Terrorism” and there was no intention to divide people on communal lines.
Madras High Court Quashes Compassionate Appointment Given To Families Of Karur Stampede Tragedy
Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court, Madurai bench on Monday (July 27) struck down a Government Order passed by the Tamil Nadu government giving compassionate appointment to the families of those who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343]
A division bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, noted that the appointment was violative of Article 14 ad 16. The bench said that there were many who were waiting to get compassionate appointment in every government department and it was not appropriate to overlook their needs and provide employment to the families in the present case.
The court also noted that though the State had claimed to have passed the orders in exercise of its administrative powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, such powers had to be exercised within the rigours of the Constitution.
Case Title: EV Velu v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 28), cancelled the look-out circular issued against former Minister EV Velu in connection with a case registered against him by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the laying of roads while he was acting as Minister for Public Works. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan cancelled the circular after noting that Velu had come back to India and was cooperating with the investigation. The court was thus inclined to cancel the circular on the condition that Velu gives prior intimation to the jurisdictional magistrate if he intends to travel abroad. It may be noted that the court had previously stayed the operation of the circular.
Case Title: B Jagadeeshwaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Noting the alarming increase in the number of advocates facing criminal cases, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a detailed survey and frame appropriate rules and policies regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the direction after noting the large number of cases flooding the courts, involving practicing advocates. The court added that the issue has reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision was required.
The court said that a survey by the Bar Council into number of advocates facing charges would in turn assist in taking an informed policy decision and framing appropriate rules regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations.
Case title: Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against lawyers who staged a protest demanding that the Trichy-Chennai highway be made toll-free for advocates, holding that the demonstration was an exercise of their democratic right to protest and did not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346]
The Court, however, stated that a road cannot be made toll-free for advocates specially.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed:
“The entire episode is nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, though for a bizarre reason. Merely because the petitioners are members of the Bar, they cannot be placed on a separate pedestal. When a toll is legally collected from the public, it must be paid by the members of the Bar as well".
Case Title: Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that Pudukottai Bar Association cannot be made solely liable to pay entire electricity dues arising from a common service connection which was also being used by several other government law offices. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347]
In doing so the court granted relief to Pudukottai Bar Association challenging a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs 5,38,924 towards electricity consumption charges for the period between November 2013 and May 2018. During the pendency of the petition, the outstanding amount had increased to Rs 22,40,665.
The Court directed the Electricity Board to install separate meters for each occupant.
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 29), permitted the withdrawal of the plea seeking an inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of assets by former Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party President MK Stalin, in his election affidavit filed during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348]
The petitioner requested the court to allow withdrawal of the plea after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination in issuing directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct an enquiry based on the representation made by the petitioner. The bench had orally remarked that the petitioner had not produced any materials to prima facie show that the assets were not declared as per law.
Case Title: Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently held that any information received by the police with respect to a crime would not automatically amount to a first information statement or a first information report unless such information meets the statutory requirements of Section 154 of CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that in the present era of instant and electronic communication, any information regarding a crime could reach the police through various channels including cryptic telephone calls, wireless messages, information from eyewitnesses, etc. The court noted that such information is mostly intended to prevent further untoward incidents.
The court observed that the burden was on the accused to prove that the prior information received by the police in connection with the crime was material information in accordance with Section 154 of CrPC and that this information was suppressed by the prosecution.
Madras High Court Issues Directions To State, Judiciary For Speedy Trial Of Rape & POCSO Cases
Case Title: XXX v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government and the State judiciary for speeding up the investigation and trial of cases of crimes against women and children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan stressed the need to follow the time limit prescribed for completing trial and witness examination under Section 346 of BNSS and Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
The court has directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all District and Sessions Judges in the State reiterating the obligation to comply with Section 346(1) of the BNSS and the mandate of recording reasons while granting adjournment as contemplated under Section 346(2) of the BNSS.
The court also directed the Registrar General to reissue an earlier circular, reminding the Presiding Officers of the Special POCSO court about their obligation to record evidence of victim child within 30 days and to conclude the trial within a year as far as possible.
Case Title: U v M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has recently held that a husband seeking divorce on the ground that the wife had a hip injury and was incapable of leading a matrimonial life would be inconsistent with humane values of the matrimonial relationship. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that a physical disability or an accidental injury does not render a person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life. The court added that humanity demands a spouse to extend compassion, support, and adjustment to a partner who has suffered a physical disability, without treating such disability with contempt.
The bench also remarked that if accidental injuries sustained by a partner are taken as a ground for dissolution of marriage, the institution of marriage and the principles of matrimonial jurisprudence would be undermined.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 30) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister and present MLA of the Coimbatore South constituency, Senthil Balaji in connection with a case registered against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the functioning of TASMAC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the anticipatory bail plea after considering the large-scale corruption involved in the case. The court opined that custodial interrogation was very much necessary in the case and thus dismissed the plea.
The court also took note of the allegation that the accused had abused their official positions and entered into conspiracy, causing large-scale loss to the state exchequer.
Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court has granted personhood to the Tamirabarani river, making it clear that no person will have a right to pollute the river, even in the name of religion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made it clear that personhood was being granted not because the waterbody was a river, but because the river was treated as a deity by persons of the Hindu religion. The court thus observed that any pollution in the river would not just be against the environmental laws but also against the river's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, the court has permitted immersion of ashes in the river, considering the sentimental and emotional attachment that Indians have to the waters of rivers and oceans and the importance of performing the rituals. The permission was granted on the condition that the ashes are carried in an unfired earthen pot, which could dissolve in the river immediately. The court made it clear that ashes cannot be thrown along with pots.
Case: Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
The Madras High Court has directed authorities to ensure that members of the Scheduled Caste community in Salem's Deviyakurichi village are allowed to participate in the annual 'Ther' festival of the Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple with adequate police protection. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354]
For context, Ther Festival is a Hindu temple chariot festival where large, decorated wooden cars carrying deity idols are pulled through streets by devotees.
Case Title: Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld an order directing a daughter and her husband to shift from the ground floor of their house to the second floor, enabling the elderly parents to occupy the ground floor on account of their advanced age. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355]
Justice M. Dhandapani held that the order by the appellate authority did not evict the petitioners, but merely regulated the mode of occupation in the house to safeguard the welfare and convenience of the senior citizens.
The Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the appellate authority's order violated an interim injunction granted by a civil court restraining the parents from evicting the petitioners from the property.
Case Title: J.Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to stop amusement rides and activities during the Aadi Thabasu festival in Tenkasi, holding that petitions of this nature, when organisers have already obtained all necessary permissions, could harm communal harmony. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356]
Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed,
“Aadi Thabasu is a very important traditional festival which is being conducted from time to time by the people of Tamil Nadu with great bhakti and devotion. Writ petition like this, would harm the communal harmony and religious harmony of the locality and this Court negates all the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the proper instructions and various permissions which has been already afforded to the organizers by the Government".
Case Title: R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court has ruled that the genuineness of a community certificate/caste certificate of a government employee can be verified even after retirement from service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357]
Answering a reference, the full bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice K Kumaresh Babu and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that an appointment based on a fraudulent certificate would be invalid from the beginning and retirement would not wash away the same. The court also held that it could not protect the retirement benefits of an employee whose employment was invalid from the beginning.
Noting that fraud has no expiry date, the bench held that employees and Scrutiny Committees are empowered to verify the genuineness of caste certificate even when the certificate was issued prior to 1995.
Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court recently held that details regarding the pay scale/salary details of judges are not information that is exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358]
Justice M Dhandapani noted that the judges receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of India and since the salary is paid from public funds, a citizen cannot be prevented from knowing about the details of the same.
Political Identity Should Not Influence Police Response To Criminal Complaints: Madras High Court
Case Title: G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police cannot take a different approach while dealing with cases, depending on the political ideology of the persons involved in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359]
Justice L Victoria Gowri thus directed the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to expeditiously process a complaint against persons for allegedly making objectionable social media posts about Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman.
The court noted that the freedom of speech and expression has a cherished position in a constitutional democracy; this freedom was not absolute. The court said that the law did not permit publication of material which amounted to a cognisable offence, merely because it related to a political personality. The court also stressed that the court could not adopt a different approach while dealing with complaints involving different political persons.
Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Direct Bank Transfer Of Compensation In Motor Accident Cases
Case Title: The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court has issued directions for disbursing compensation in motor accident cases by way of direct bank transfer. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360]
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the Chief Justice, to all Motor Accident Tribunals in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for strict compliance of the directions to ensure timely disbursement of just compensation to the claimants, in the interest of justice.
The court has directed all insurance companies, transport corporations and others liable for compensation to deposit the awarded/enhanced compensation by Direct Bank Transfer (NEFT/RTGS) into the bank account of the claimant, confirmed and specified by the Tribunal in its award.
Whistling At Child, Pulling Her Hand May Be Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court recently held that whistling at a minor girl and pulling her hand when she did not to respond is not sexual assault. The court said that such acts could only be termed as harassment and not assault. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361]
“From the statements of witnesses and materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner pulled the victim by his hand, when the victim failed to respond to his whistle. Such act cannot be straightaway termed as sexual intent and at most, it can be termed as harassment and not an act of sexual assault. Hence, the judgment needs to be re-considered,” Justice Nirmal Kumar said.