LiveLaw Madras High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026 [Citations 228 - 286]
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 NOMINAL INDEX V v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 Muthukumar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230 V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231 The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
NOMINAL INDEX
V v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Muthukumar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
M Vigneshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Nanjil Mugilan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
D Sathishkumar v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Murugan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
XXXX v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Rajammal v The Administrator and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Udayakumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Palanikumar v R Selvi, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
N v N, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
PK Sekar Babu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Vimala v The Director of Vigilance, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
S Rameshkumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
REPORTS
Hindu Wife Removing 'Thali' Amounts To Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Grants Divorce
Case Title: V v. C
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
While upholding an order granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court observed that the removal of the Thali (mangalsutra) by a Hindu wife would amount to mental cruelty upon the husband.
The court also observed after considering the evidence, the husband's allegation that the wife converted to Christiany also cannot be thrown away.
Justice P Vadamalai thereafter said:
"From the above, it is very clear that the respondent/wife adopted Christianity as her daughter's name and her marriage to a Christian is revealed from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and hence, the allegation of conversion of religion by the respondent/wife cannot be thrown away upon consideration of the entire evidence on record. This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty".
Though the wife argued that the High Court cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court held that the same could be taken note of by the court while considering a plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Case Title: M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 2), permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking probe into alleged suppression of income by TVK chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan accepted the request of the petitioner to withdraw the plea and ordered accordingly.
The petition, filed by M Rajkumar of Chennai has sought a direction to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) to examine the materials and findings recorded in search proceedings, sworn statement recoded during the assessment proceedings and the penalty order passed under the Income Tax Act against Vijay and pass appropriate prosecution proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Muthukumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of four men in a double murder case after noting that the investigating officer had conducted a bizarre investigation, leaving out vital witnesses and not recording their statements.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case only because of a defective investigation. Taking note of judicial pronouncements to this effect, the court ordered departmental action against the investigating officer and ordered it to be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against 15 members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who had assembled unlawfully to celebrate the organisation's 100th year ceremony.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the parties had only assembled unlawfully to celebrate 100 years of the organisation and no public was affected by the same. The court remarked that the persons involved were following their rights provided by the Constitution and unlawful assembly by itself would not be an offence.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently enhanced compensation for a man who was left in a persistent vegetative state following a road accident.
Noting the advocate's failure to appeal for enhanced compensation, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that once an advocate enters appearance for a client, he is expected to offer proper legal advice, including necessity of filing cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation whenever required.
The court added that the advocate's failure to provide proper legal advise is dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the true success of the child protection laws in the state rests not merely on the number of convictions secured, but on the overall well-being of the child and the sensitivity with which the institutions treat the child who comes into the justice system.
Justice Victoria Gowri was dealing with 4 petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings which were initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. During the course of the proceedings, the court concluded that the four cases were initiated falsely, by coercing the child.
The court observed that a child, who is made to narrate a false sexual narrative at the instance of an adult may suffer emotional confusion, social fear, shame and psychological burden. The court also remarked that the investigating agencies should display highest degree of sensitivity before registering allegations under the POCSO Act.
The court thus asked the Secretary to Government (Home Department), Secretary (Directorate of Social Welfare), and the Secretary (Department of Law and Justice) to consider framing and formulating a coordinated State wide sensitisation programme titled “Singapen Sensitisation Workshop”
Case Title: Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee under the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant permission to a Bangladeshi mother to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son, who was suffering from end-stage renal chronic kidney disease.
While doing so, Justice GR Swaminathan criticised the Authorisation Committee for denying permission for transplantation on alleged suspicion about the spousal relationship between the minor's mother and father. The judge noted that the spousal relationship was irrelevant and the authorisation committee should have only considered whether the recipient was the son of the donor. The court thus held that the order was vitiated by irrelevant consideration.
Case Title: M Vigneshwaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court recently held that a dying declaration made by a person would not be unreliable merely because the person had suffered 100% burns at the time of making the declaration.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the dying declaration can be accepted where it is proved that at the time of making the statement, the declarant was "in a conscious and fit state of mind".
The bench held that the decisive test is not the extent of injuries but whether there is reliable evidence to show that the person was mentally fit.
Case Title: Nanjil Mugilan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently observed that the consent of the Central Government would be required in cases of remission only when the period of sentencing under the Central Act is still pending.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan thus held that when the period of sentence under the Central Act has been served by a convict, the approval from the Central Government is no longer necessary for granting remission by the State Government.
Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against two men for allegedly abusing a police officer and preventing him from discharging his official duty.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the final report was filed in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. The court highlighted that criminal law could not be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action.
The court said that in the present case the prosecution materials were vague and the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out against the petioners.
Case Title: D Sathishkumar v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently held that the past conduct of an accused, who was evading arrest and absconding at the time of investigation, can be considered for denying him permission to travel abroad.
Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
Madras High Court Criticises Vigilance Department For Not Probing Allegations Of TNSTCScam
Case Title: S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court has asked the Vigilance Department to probe allegations of fake records being created to show that buses were plying on roads.
While doing so, Justice B Pugalendhi criticised the Vigilance Department for not probing the matter earlier despite receiving complaints and merely forwarding the same to the Additional Chief Secretary. The court added that the department should have conducted a probe to find out whether such fraud was being conducted on other bus routes also.
The court also observed that the department, which was expected to monitor 14 lakh government employees, was functioning for namesake and filing 100 cases per year just to show that they are functioning.
Case Title: M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court recently declared former speaker Appavu as the winning candidate for the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency in Tirunelveli District for the 2016-2021 General Assembly Elections.
Noting the unfortunate 10-year delay in ordering the case due to the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, Justice G Jayachandran highlighted that when courts do not adhere to the mandate for expeditious trial as provided under the Representation of the People Act, it undermines democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.
The court added that the present case was a mockery of justice, where people of the constituency were forced to bear a person as their representative though he was not duly elected.
Case Title: Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases registered against six individuals for alleged election-related offences, citing "vague" and "generalised allegations" which were not supported by foundational facts as well as serious infirmities in the prosecution's case.
While doing so, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the courts were guardians not just against crime but against misuse of criminal process also. The court added that while democracy needs strict adherence to electoral discipline, not every election-related offence could be converted into a criminal trial.
The court said that the entire prosecution rested solely upon interested police witnesses without independent corroboration. It said that while absence of independent witnesses may not always be fatal, in election-related prosecutions occurring in crowded public spaces, the total absence of neutral testimony assumes great significance.
Case Title: Murugan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl ultimately leading to pregnancy and wherein the trial court had relied on the child's DNA report to substantiate offence of penetrative sexual assault.
The appellant claimed that neither the girl nor her parents supported the prosecution's case and the trial court had convicted the appellant only based on the DNA report of the child born to the girl.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the trial court was right in relying upon the positive DNA report to conclude that the child was born to the victim through the accused. The court noted that the DNA test laid the foundational facts of the case, which was corroborated with the statement of the victim to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court recently closed film producer Akash Bhaskaran's plea challenging the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against him in connection with an alleged money laundering linked to TASMAC.
Bhaskaran had filed the plea challenging ED's search at his premises and to quash all consequential proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a similar plea challenging the ED action against another individual was closed, granting him liberty to raise issues before the Adjudicating Authority.
In the present case also, noting that the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment of property, the court closed the plea, granting liberty to Bhaskar to raise issues before the Authority.
Case Title: Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking to condemn the relegation of Tamil Nadu's state song, “Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu”, to third position during the swearing-in ceremony of the new Chief Minister Vijay.
Notably, actor and TVK head Vijay was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State on May 10.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan permitted the withdrawal of the plea and gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Central Government circular regarding events attended by the Governor of the State.
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress Sukanya for airing the defamatory statements made by notorious criminal Veerappan in a 1996 interview with investigative journalist Gopal @ Nakheeran Gopal.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu upheld the order after noting that there was malice on the part of Sun TV for not editing the defamatory part and not airing a regret in its own channel later. It may be noted that Sun TV had issued a regret in another magazine. The court noted that there was no explanation given on why the regret was published in a third-party magazine instead of airing it in the channel itself.
Case Title: XXXX v State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs 10 Lakh each as compensation to three minor boys who were victims of sexual assault by their father and paternal uncle.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanei Prasad, where the court emphasized compensation in such exceptional circumstances where the children are victims of incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent. The court thus thought it was a fit case to grant compensation since the children were subjected to assault over a period of years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder, which needed continuous therapy.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 8th), closed a plea challenging a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu police, directing the removal/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the posts in question have been deleted by the users and thus nothing survived in the matter, making it infructuous.
The petition was filed by social activist P Chockalingam, challenging the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu police under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
Case Title: Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board declaring a 240-year-old Dargah as Waqf property.
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavathi observed that for declaring a property as Waqf property, it had to be surveyed and notified as per the procedure laid down in the Waqf Act. The court added that every grave or dargah could not be termed as Waqf property and the existence of an endowment was essential. The court added that the Waqf Board cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the property is a Muslim religious institution.
Case Title: P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to furnish the election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought for by a candidate who contested from the same constituency for filing an election affidavit.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan rejected the ECI's argument that the documents could be furnished only after 45 days from the date of election. The court noted that the Representation of People Act was a self-contained code that provided the time limits within which an election petition had to be filed (45 days).
The court observed that of ECI retained the documents, the petitioner would not be able to file the Election Petition with necessary supporting documents, and his right to move the court itself would become negatory.
Case Title: Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently remitted a case back to the trial court after noting that the judgment in the case was pronounced without hearing the oral arguments of the defence side. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250]
Emphasizing the requirement of hearing the defence side during the trial, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that even if the counsel for the defence does not appear, it is for the court to take alternative steps and the case cannot be dismissed for default.
Case Title: Rajammal v The Administrator and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by a wife seeking to stop the disbursement of pensionary benefits and other service benefits to her husband over unpaid maintenance dues.
Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar observed that the High Court could not be converted into an execution court or family court. The court observed that if the wife succeeded in her maintenance case against the husband, it was upon her to initiate execution proceedings for execution of the order.
Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has observed that Tamil Nadu can claim to have achieved "true change" only when caste is eradicated from the minds of people, while emphasizing the need for sustained efforts to eliminate caste-based considerations in society.
Making the observation in a recent judgment, the Court noted that the results of the latest Assembly elections in the State demonstrated that voters could be persuaded to look beyond caste and community identities while exercising their franchise.
The Court further stressed that social transformation requires a corresponding change in public consciousness and attitudes.
Case Title: S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases against a husband's relatives under Section 498A of the IPC after noting that the allegations against the relatives were vague and unsupported by documents.
Justice Victoria Gowri underlined that criminal prosecution cannot be launched against a husband's relative merely because there is matrimonial discord among the couple.
The court highlighted that criminal process was a shield for the aggrieved and not a sword for vengeance. It added that while courts should always ensure that the wife's voice must not be silenced, it should also ensure that the relatives of the husband are not subjected to a long criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband, without materials.
Madras High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeal Against Release Of "Dhruva Natchathiram" Movie
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by creditors of actor-director Gautam Vasudev Menon, challenging an order of a single judge paving the way for the release of the much-anticipated Tamil movie "Dhruva Natchathiram".
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi has dismissed the appeals filed by K Prem Kumar and K Punniyamoorthy.
Case Title: Udayakumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
While dealing with a criminal appeal of a murder convict, the Madras High Court expressed displeasure in the manner in which the students, who had witnessed the attack on their fellow classmate by the accused, had turned hostile during trial. 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that it was disappointing to see students, who witnessed the incident, give a different version in the court.
In this backdrop, it observed that there was no use in merely expressing dissent and views on social media and unless those were translated into action, students would only become “paper tigers” in real life.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 16), dismissed a PIL seeking a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in the manner in which four MLAs from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party resigned from their posts after winning State assembly elections and joined Chief Minister Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256]
The bench has now dismissed the plea, stating that sudden realignment in political loyalty, by itself, is not an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without any supporting evidence.
The court also noted that the plea was filed on assumptions of corruption, without any evidence to prove the same. The court added that the petitioner had not given any details of transactions in connection with the alleged corruption and the plea itself was a classic example of a fishing expedition.
Madras High Court Rejects Flipkart Founders' Review Plea Against ED Show-Cause Notice In FEMA Case
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the owners of Flipkart – Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal, seeking to review an earlier order of the High Court dismissing their plea against a show-cause notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a FEMA Case.
Justice S Sounthar dismissed the review application filed by the duo
The petitioners along with some other companies had approached the High Court challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director of the ED and the show cause notices. The allegation against the petitioners was that they had contravened the provisions of Section 6 (3) (b) r/w Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 r/w Regulations 3, 4 and 5 and para-3 and para 9(1) (B) (i) of Schedule 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 and annexure – B to para 2 of Schedule – 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 r/w consolidated FDI Policies dated 01.04.2010 and 01.10.2010.
Case Title: A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court has asked the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital and other authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that the mortal remains of Akash, a 26-year-old who was allegedly killed in custodial violence, are disposed of in a dignified manner.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the body had been remaining unclaimed for almost 90 days and the family had not been receiving the mortal remains despite judicial orders. The court observed that when sufficient opportunity had been given to the family, the court was left with no other option but to ask the State to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Name : M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that employee who had been promoted before completing the qualifying period for grant of Special Grade could not claim such benefits by delaying the assumption of charge of the promotional post.
Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in assets declared by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay in his election affidavit.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the bench had previously dismissed a batch of pleas seeking similar relief.
It may be noted that in April 2026, the bench had issued notice on the plea after noting that the alleged discrepancy of Rs 100 crore in the two affidavits filed by Vijay was an irregularity.
Case Title: Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking directions to Income Tax and election authorities to probe alleged irregularities in financial declarations made by BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan in her election affidavits filed in 2024 and in 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261]
The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting the bench's previous orders in a similar plea.
Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in the assets declared by former Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and current Leader of Opposition Udayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the High Court could not issue such directions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While setting aside an order of a single judge directing Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a group of students to continue their course and to attend the examinations despite a shortage of attendance, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in classrooms.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that online classes would not be a substitute for physical mode of learning. The court added that AI tools like ChatGPT could never be equated with a qualified teacher and cannot teach aspects of integrity and morality, which are important aspects of the legal profession.
The court observed that studying law connects students to society and gives them an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. The court added that legal education was not just a means to make money but requires a commitment to society. The court added that only classroom debates and dynamic social discussions would help in building legal ideas.
Madras High Court Stays OTT Release Of Telugu Dubbed Version Of "Drishyam 3"
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), restrained the makers of Malayalam movie “Drishyam 3” from releasing the Telugu-dubbed version of the movie on OTT platforms.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu passed the interim order on a plea moved by film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd. The company had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director and their agents, employees, assignees, licensees, and everyone claiming through them from infringing the company's exclusive copyright to remake and exploit the movie in Telugu language, by releasing the dubbed version of the movie in Telugu, anywhere in the world.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to all Returning Officers involved in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has dismissed the plea filed by Arjunan Sampath, founding President of the Indu Makkal Katchi. The court underlined that it could not use its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to micro-manage the election process. The bench added that any grievance relating to disqualification or false declaration of a candidate should be redressed by filing an election petition.
'Coimbatore Communally Sensitive': Madras High Court Stops Construction Of Church Near Temple
Case Title: Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently ordered a temporary injunction restraining the construction of a Church near a Mariyamman Temple in Coimbatore District.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out when a large church was proposed to be constructed near a temple, despite opposition from the majority Hindu community.
The court also noted that the Church was proposed to be constructed on a public road. The court thus noted that the authorities should not have permitted the construction of the church on a road, when there was vigorous opposition from the Hindu community. The court added that if there was a right and there was unreasonable opposition, the State could go to any extent to uphold the right. However, in the present case, the court opined that there was no such right to construct church in the road.
Case Title: Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court recently refused to set aside an order of a single judge dismissing a student's plea asking Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to grant her course completion certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on repayment of fee, which was seized by NIA for alleged terror links. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the fee paid by the student during her MBBS course was seized by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), holding that the fee was funded through Maoist activities.
The bench observed that if the student was in fact innocent, she could approach the Special Court for releasing the seized funds. The court added that the college could not be expected to litigate against the NIA to retrieve the fee.
Case Title: Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High Court has observed that the impact of hormonal changes during teenage years can be a relevant factor while deciding the sentence in cases arising out of romantic relationships, even though consent or a romantic relationship is no defence under the POCSO Act.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan reduced the life sentence imposed on the convict, who was hardly 19 years old at the time of commission of the offence, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Case Title: P Palanikumar v R Selvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Evidence Act enables a judge to ask any question that he pleases during trial with respect to any relevant or irrelevant fact during the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the judge is obliged to exercise the sweeping power available to him to pose questions and clear out any suspicion that he has. The court added that the judge should not sit like a sphinx during trial but is expected to engage with the bar through dialogue. The court added that this exercise is also an important facet of the principle of natural justice.
Case Title: Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (June 18), dismissed a plea seeking a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure fair, uniform, transparent and uninterrupted environment for students writing the NEET UG 2026 examination. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and it would not be appropriate for the HC to intervene in the matter during the pendency of the case.
The petition, filed by Venkatesawaran from Krishnagiri District of Tamil Nadu, had sought a direction to the authorities to formulate a comprehensive SOP to ensure that the students get prescribed time to write the examination across all examination centres.
Case Title: N v N
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
While refusing to grant divorce to a husband who claimed to have suffered mental cruelty due to his wife's alleged undisclosed Schizophrenia condition, the Madras High Court held that making such unfounded allegations regarding the mental health of the wife not just amounts to cruelty but is an intrusion into the wife's privacy and personal autonomy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that making reckless and humiliating allegations against a spouse, touching upon mental illness or emotional instability, instead of extending emotional support, would deeply wound the dignity, self-worth, and emotional well-being of the spouse.
Case Title: K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Allowing a 23-year-old woman to terminate her 15-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court recently observed that the law did not compel motherhood and a woman should have the freedom to decide if she wants to continue her pregnancy or not. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272]
Justice Victoria Gowri also observed that the Constitution places trust in the choice of a woman and considers her autonomy as an indispensable part of her dignity. The court added that the courts are duty-bound to protect this dignity and autonomy.
Case Title: R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Granting relief to a mother pursuing her LLM degree, the Madras High Court recently held that the academic timelines cannot be strictly applied to a woman who was undergoing pregnancy and childbirth. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273]
Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar directed the Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University and the Principal of Madurai Government Law College to permit the woman to submit her dissertation and participate in the viva voce examination in June 2026. While doing so, the court emphasised that educational institutions were expected to approach such situations with compassion, fairness and sensitivity.
The court added that reasonable accommodation should be given to a woman so that she is not deprived of her educational opportunities solely due to pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal responsibilities. The court added that a balance must be struck to ensure that motherhood does not become an obstacle in the completion of education.
Case Title: Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBCID probe into the attack on V Suresh, Senior Advocate and General Secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties by persons allegedly associated with quarry operators during a public hearing. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274]
Criticising the investigation done by the State police into the matter, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the State had acted in a biased manner and had conducted the investigation without properly examining the organisers, participants or the injured persons and had hurriedly filed the final report. Noting that the right to a fair investigation was part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that it was a fit case to transfer the investigation.
Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable.
The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision.
Case Title: Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
A 5-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity which cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to pendency of appeal. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice CV Karthikeyan, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observations while dealing with a reference made to it for deciding the following question of law:
1) Whether leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, can be granted to a prisoner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when his appeal against conviction is pending either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court?
2) Whether the power to exempt under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 can be exercised by the State to grant leave to a prisoner outside the scope of the said Rules when his appeal against conviction is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1961 SC 112?
Case Title: Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification refusing to grant a certificate to the movie 'Lakshmi Lawrence Kadhal'. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277]
Justice R Kalaimathi noted that the CBFC and the examining committee had, in unison, concluded that the movie was violative of guideline 2(xii) in several places and was not suitable for public exhibition.
The court held that the Board more conscious about the need to protect the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the Indian citizens. The court also noted that Board had clearly stated the reasons for refusing certification. Thus, finding no infirmity, the court refused to interfere with the CBFC's order.
Case Title: PK Sekar Babu v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA PK Sekar Babu has withdrawn a plea filed by him seeking to quash an FIR registered by the police against him for allegedly attacking the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Sinora Ashok, who contested the election from Harbuor Constituency.
The plea was withdrawn after Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, who heard the plea on Thursday (26th June), said that he was not convinced with the grounds raised for quashing the FIR and was inclined to dismiss Sekar Babu's plea. Following this, a request was made to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed.
Case Title: Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has declared as unconstitutional a Government Order which allowed a person who converted to Islam from Backwards Classes, Most Backwards Classes, Denotified Communities, or Scheduled Castes to be treated as BC (Muslim) and be issued with a community certificate as belonging to one of the 7 notified sects for availing reservation upon conversion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji held that the GO was strictly against the judicial pronouncements made by the High Court and the Supreme Court, holding that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim.
The court also remarked that when Christian Missionaries and Islamic preachers had, throughout centuries, claimed that their religion offered social equality unlike Hinduism, which propagated caste, it was not appropriate to claim that Islam also had hierarchy.
Case Title: M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has struck down Section 34C of the Registration Act 1908, inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2026 after finding it to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280]
Section 34C of the Registration Act dealt with the production of original documents. As per the Section, the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the executant produces the previous original documents by which the right over the subject property was acquired by him, along with the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the subject property, obtained 10 days prior to the date of presentation.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that the provision was nothing but a resurrection of old Rules (Rule 55A), which was already held unconstitutional by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court held that the new provision brought in restrictions on a person dealing with his own property, which was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Case Title: Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has issued extensive guidelines for magistrates who are dealing with applications for custody and parentage under Section 4(iii) (a) (II) of the Surrogacy Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281]
As per the Act, no surrogacy or surrogacy procedures shall be conducted, undertaken, performed or initiated, unless the Director or the person in charge of the surrogacy clinic and the person qualified to do so are satisfied that the intending couple is in possession of a certificate of essentiality issued by the appropriate authority, including the order of the court.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the guidelines are intended to bring in uniformity in judicial practice and avoid unnecessary hardship to the couples, the surrogate mother, and the child.
The court also emphasised that while processing the applications, the Magistrate's role is limited to ensuring voluntariness, statutory compliance, and welfare of the child and the Magistrate was not expected to sit in appeal over findings by the Medical Board except in case of fraud.
Case Name: The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that an employee appointed belatedly due to administrative delay, but selected along with a batch before the cut-off date, is entitled to the old pension scheme (as applicable to that batch) and cannot be switched to the new pension scheme after two decades.
It was further noted that the delay in making her appointment was exclusively attributable to the authorities and not to the employee. It was held by the Division Bench that merely because she was appointed belatedly on account of the inaction of the authorities, the right conferred upon her could not be taken away, especially after a period of two decades.
It was held that the issuance of show cause notice to bring her under CPS was unsustainable
Case Title: R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has recently held that morphing a woman's image and uploading it on social media is not a harmless prank but a calculated assault on her privacy, reputation, and emotional security. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283]
Justice Victoria Gowri thus directed the police to conduct immediate verification and register an FIR with respect to a complaint regarding the morphing of a woman's photos. The court held that just because the woman was in Singapore, where she was employed, her physical absence should not dilute the duty of Indian Law enforcement agencies.
The court observed that complaints of this nature cannot be taken as a mere private dispute. The court observed that online sexual harassment, morphing, creation of fake profiles, etc was a serious intrusion into the bodily privacy and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Stays Inspector's Suspension, Finds DVAC Order Prima Facie 'Motivated'
Case Title: Vimala v The Director of Vigilance
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
The Madras High Court has stayed the suspension of an Inspector of Police after noting that the suspension order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.
Justice PT Asha thus granted an interim stay till July 9, on a petition filed by Vimala, who was working as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, DVAC.
Case Title: S Rameshkumar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings against three officials who were working with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department in a case for allegedly misappropriating temple funds.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that there was no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the case against the three officials. Thus, noting that continued proceedings would be malafide and an abuse of the process of law, the court allowed their pleas to quash the case against them.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court has confirmed the death sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting three minor girls aged 6, 7, and 8 years. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286]
Confirming the death sentence imposed by the Tirunelveli POCSO Court, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the crime committed by the man was so heinous and devoid of human conscience that it demanded a judicial response which mirrored society's collective abhorrence. The bench added that sparing the life of such a person would be an act of misplaced mercy.
The court also observed that the case fell within the exception of rarest of the rare where an alternative punishment could not be given. The court added that the law must possess a spine of steel while dealing with persons who prey on children to satisfy their dark instinct. The court remarked that the judgment should serve as a warning that no one who manipulates, terrorises and destroys the youth was immune from law.