Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 NOMINAL INDEX Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96 S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98 The Commissioner and Others v....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
NOMINAL INDEX
Porkodi v. Siva and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
Mahesh v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
Nandhini v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
Selvi v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
REPORTS
Madras High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 12 Accused In Murder Case Of BSP Leader K Armstrong
Case Title: Porkodi v. Siva and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 95
The Madras High Court has cancelled the bail of 12 accused persons arrested in connection with the murder of BSP leader K Armstrong.
Armstrong was brutally attacked and murdered on July 5, 2024.
Justice K Rajasekar decided to cancel bail after taking note of the submission made by Additional Public Prosecutor R Muniapparaj, who informed the court that the case was still at the stage of framing of charges and that granting bail to the accused at this stage might result in tampering with witnesses and destruction of evidence.
The court has also directed the accused persons to surrender before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai on or before March 6.
Case Title: P Malairajan and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 96
The Madras High Court has dismissed pleas by more than 300 families challenging the eviction proceedings initiated by the State government as part of upgrading the Madurai airport to an international airport.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the government had acted fairly and reasonably and had even granted additional compensation to the families, along with providing alternate housing.
The court noted that in the present case, the land acquisition was started in 2009, and thus, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 would not be applicable in the present case. Though the petitioners also claimed 2 acre of agricultural land, the court noted that there was nothing to show that they were involved in agriculture and thus, the demand could not be accepted.
Minister Ragupathy Gave Mischievous Political Spin To Thiruparankundram Issue: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Paramasivam v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 97
The Madras High Court, on Monday (March 2nd), remarked that Tamil Nadu Minister for Minerals and Mines S Regupathy had given a mischievous political spin to the Thiruparankundram issue when he made a statement that the Government would not permit lighting of the Karthigai deepam at the Deepathoon (Stone Pillar).
Justice GR Swaminathan was hearing a sub-application filed for impleading the Minister in the ongoing contempt petition against the state authorities for failing to comply with the court order and not permitting lighting of the lamp.
It had been argued that as per a newspaper article on 7th January 2026, the Minister had allegedly stated that the prohibitory order was issued to frustrate the court order and that the government would not permit the lighting of lamp at the deepathoon.
Since the Collector had controverted the stand taken by the Minister, the court was not inclined to summon the Minister. The court also thought it fit to close the sub-application but made it clear that it would not hesitate from reopening the matter if occasion demands.
Case Title: Sethumadhavan and Another v. Sigamani and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
The Madras High Court has called for disciplinary action against the District Collector of Ramanathapuram for failing to appear in a case, which ultimately led to an ex parte order being passed against government property.
Justice N Senthilkumar remarked that when valuable government property was involved in litigation, the government could not remain a mute spectator. The court added that when responsible officers fail to conduct cases, it would affect the public interest.
The court has also directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disatser Management Department, to issue comprehensive Government Order giving clear guidelines for all government pleaders and revenue officials specifying their duties and responsibilities in civil suits against the state, mandatory steps to be taken when government officials are set ex parte, time lines for filing written statements, applications to set aside the ex parte orders, appeals, and petitions for condonation of delay, and disciplinary consequences in case of dereliction of duty.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v. Kannammal Education Trust and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 99
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the delay on the State's part in pursuing appeals against orders on time.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that in a large number of cases, the court was observing that the State was filing appeals after a great delay and no satisfactory explanation was being given for the delay. The court noted that the delay seemed to be either due to negligence or due to connivance with the parties concerned. The court thus directed that a discreet vigilance enquiry can be conducted to unearth the truth.
Case Title: Mohana Ramaswami v. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has clarified that when an addressee has died, the post that was addressed to him can be handed over to his/her family, without sending it back to the sender.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that there was confusion on the category of persons who could collect the article since it had not been defined under the regulations. The court thus directed the Ministry of Communications to make suitable amendments to the Post Office Regulations to clearly define the persons to whom items could be delivered, where the addressee is dead.
Till the regulations are suitably amended, the court clarified that the articles could be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased, as they would undoubtedly fall within the category of persons to whom items could be delivered.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. P Madhusudhanreddy IAS and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 101
The Madras High Court has criticised the delay on the part of the state in complying with court orders and removing encroachment of around 507 acres of temple land.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice B Pugalendhi observed that constitutional governance should not be subordinate to electoral expediency. The court remarked that merely because a deity did not have voting rights, it should not be left remediless. The court added that it had a parens patiae jurisdiction, and when judicial orders are stalled by organised resistance, the rule of law itself stands tested.
Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102
The Madras High Court recently held that the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme [Marriage Assistance Scheme] of the Tamil Nadu government cannot be extended to every person who earns minimum wages.
Interfering with an observation made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the single judge could not substitute one executive policy for another. The bench noted that when there was no law that extended the scheme to persons with minimum wages, such a benefit could not be ordered by the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Mahesh v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a boy convicted and sentenced under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Noting that the couple, both of whom were minors at the time, were having a consensual relationship, Justice N Mala noted that in such kinds of relationships, it was often the young boys who ended up bearing the consequences.
The court further noted that if wide publicity is given about the provisions of the POCSO Act and its stringency, as provided under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, this menace could be controlled to an extent. The court highlighted that lack of knowledge about the stringency of the provisions is one of the reasons that the law was being misused.
The court thus directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate positive steps to comply with Section 43 of the POCSO Act, to create awareness among the general public, children and parents about the act. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to consider organising camps in Government and private schools and colleges for creating awareness about the act and its dire consequences.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu and another v. V Shunmugam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 104
The Madras High Court recently held that the High Courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct an enquiry into pay parity.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that when the state had issued clear directives that its prior approval was necessary for upgrading the pay scale of workers of Arasu Rubber Corporation, a public sector undertaking of the Tamil Nadu government, the court could not rule otherwise.
Case Title: E Hariharan v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 105
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Puducherry to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for sensitizing public officials for dealing with persons with disabilities.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan highlighted that persons with disabilities had to be treated equally without discrimination and attitudinal barriers, and with sensitivity. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to bring in an SOP for conducting sensitization programmes for public officials periodically.
The bench added that the right to access to justice and right to quality and equal treatment was basic human rights. However, the court added that while these principles found place in the constitution and the statute, the ground reality was different due to the attitude of the officials.
Case Title: B Shajimon v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 106
The Madras High Court recently lamented that education was being prioritised only for admission to medical or engineering seats, and the parents were making their kids run a rat race.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that parents were making kids choose easier subjects, so that the child could focus on three subjects alone, making it easier to clear the NEET examination. The court added that in high schools, even the mother tongue was being sacrificed so that the child could focus on NEET preparation.
Case Title: The Deputy Director v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 107
The Madras High Court directed the transfer of a money laundering case lodged under the PMLA to the Special Court of CBI cases which is hearing the predicate offence under Prevention of Corruption Act in the matter, after noting that the Special Court under PC Act is a designated court under the PMLA as well.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava (now retired) and Justice G Arul Murugan was considering a situation where the predicate offence is an offence under a special enactment being tried by a special court constituted under the special enactment, i.e., the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Special Court under the PMLA is not a designated Special Court under the PC Act.
Case Title: A Radhakrishnan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 108
The Madras High Court has asked the government to take appropriate action against District Collectors and police officials, if they do not act in accordance with the Government's policy to abolish the orderly system in the State.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the orderly system had been abolished in the state and the government was duty-bound to work out modalities for enforcing its policy decision. For this, the court added that suitable actions could be taken against the officials who were not functioning in tune with government policies.
Case Title: Nandhini v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 109
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a woman for allegedly murdering her husband due to repeated quarrels and throwing his body in the nearby well.
While doing so, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that in homicidal death cases, the primary fact that had to be proved was the identity of the deceased, which was not done in the present case. The court added that unless the identity of the deceased is proved, the court could not go into other materials relied upon by the prosecution.
Registering Authority Cannot Usurp Powers Of Civil Court To Cancel Sale Deed: Madras High Court
Case Title: Gurumurthi and Another v. The District Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 110
The Madras High Court has reiterated that the registering authority does not have the power to go into the civil rights of parties.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender held that the registering authority cannot usurp the powers of the civil court and can only interfere if there is any apparent error. The court added that if there is any doubt regarding the civil rights of the parties, the registering authority should relegate the matter to the civil court.
With respect to fraud, the court noted that there were threefold actions that could be taken in case of fraud. First, the aggrieved person may file a complaint and prosecute the persons under the criminal law. Second, the person can approach the civil court for establishing the civil rights. Third, the person can approach the competent authorities for cancelling the registered documents. The court, however, made it clear that the definition of fraud could not be expanded for adjudicating civil rights through administrative action.
Case Title: Selvi v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 111
The Madras High Court recently acquitted a woman convicted of the murder of her husband.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal noted that the woman was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while convicting the wife, the trial court had noted that she had not discharged the burden to prove that she was not inside the house when the husband was killed.
The court ruled that merely because the parties were husband and wife, it could not be presumed that they would always be seen together. The court noted that the prosecution had not let in any evidence to show that the couple was last seen together and, in such circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not apply to shift the burden to the accused.
Case Title: St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 112
The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to allot land to St.Josephs Matriculation Higher Secondary School in Cuddalore District in exchange for the land that the school had returned to a temple.
Noting that the land initially allotted for the school was sand dunes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the state had acted recklessly and given away sand dunes for development without considering its ecological impact. The court observed that the sand dunes were also an incarnation of God and without realising it, the state had given away God itself to protect the sentiments of the devotees.
Case Title: V Ponramu and Another v. The Registrar, SHRC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 113
The Madras High Court has quashed an order of the State Human Rights Commission recommending Rs. 2 Lakh compensation to Lois Sofia and disciplinary action against police officers who arrested her for raising slogans against former Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the SHRC had made its recommendations, noting that there were discrepancies in the time of arrest and that the charge under Section 505(1)(b) [statement conducing to public mischief] was inserted by hand in the printed FIR.
The court held that such discrepancies should have been a matter of trial and it was not for the SHRC to decide the issues. The court observed that the Commission had conducted a parallel trial and its findings were per se illegal. The court was thus inclined to quash the commission's order.
Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court recently lamented the misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country.
The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act.
Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court recently noted that one person cannot claim two dearness allowances.
Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances.
Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a group of men for allegedly attempting to damage public property using combustible material near the Central Bus Stand, Udhagamandalam.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that when there was nothing to show that the men had lit the combustible material, it could not be said that mischief had been committed.
Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court has held that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest, by doing cultivation for livelihood, are essential for being declared as a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival.
Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (17th March), stayed the contempt proceedings pending before a single judge of the Madurai bench over non-compliance of its order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has issued the interim stay on an appeal filed by the State authorities. The Court also remarked that such issues could have been avoided if the temple management itself had taken steps to light the lamp as per the order.
If Wife Elopes With Another Man, Habeas Corpus Petition No Remedy: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court recently observed that no remedy under a habeas corpus petition would lie for the disappearance of a wife, who actually eloped with another man.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking to produce the body of his wife and two kids, aged 3.5 years and 2 years, who were missing since March 6, 2026.
While the court noted that it could not do anything about the eloping of the wife and the husband had to work out his remedies against her before the appropriate court, the court expressed concern regarding the two kids.
Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Provisions Of Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th March) closed a public interest litigation challenging the provisions of the Centre's new law replacing the MGREGA, the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G].
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the case after the petitioner informed the bench that he would withdraw the case.
The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Ban Pre-Poll Alliance Between Political Parties
Case Title: R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that a direction could not be issued to the ECI to restrict parties from forming pre-poll alliances. The bench also noted that its Madurai bench had earlier dismissed a similar plea seeking identical relief. Thus, finding no merits, the court dismissed the plea.
The petitioner, R Viswanathan, argued that pre-poll alliances were often formed, not in the interest of democracy but with selfish motives to defeat a common political enemy. It has been submitted that pre-poll alliances are formed to gain political power by hook or crook without any ideology, and the parties are not bothered about the welfare of the people.
Case Title: Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court has issued extensive directions for the removal of Seemai Karuvelam (Prosopis Juliflora) in the State including setting up of a special committee consisting of two retired judges of the Madras High Court (Justice A Selvam in the South and Justice V Bharathidasan in the North) to supervise the action taken by the District Collectors.
The specially constituted bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that even though 11 years had passed since the first order of the court for removing Seemai Karuvelam, no substantial progress had been made. In such a situation, the court said it was left with only two options – either to initiate contempt against the officers or to issue further directions. Since the first option would not yield the desired result of removing the invasive species, the court decided to go ahead with the latter.
Case Title: S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court recently lamented that instead of focusing on real and tangible things in life, people are focusing on non-existent things like caste, which do not have any existence than in the minds of people.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while noting that the state authorities in Ramanathapuram District had denied permission for installing a statue of freedom fighter Veerapandiya Kattabomman on the ground that the people were seeking the erection of a statue for caste consolidation
The court noted that everyone had duty under constitution to create a casteless egalitarian society which cannot be forgotten and when the authorities had passed this order keeping in mind this duty, it cannot be interfered with.
“Not A Shortcut”: Madras High Court Cautions Against Routine Use Of Detention Orders
Case Title: R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently observed that the detention law cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal law procedure.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal added that the authorities can not resort to passing detention orders in every case of murder. The court added that instructions should be given to the Government to ensure that detention orders are not passed in a mechanical manner in all cases involving a solitary incident, which could be dealt with under the normal criminal law. The court added that if such cases are found in the future, costs would be imposed on the same.
Case Title: Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has recently observed that obtaining an environment clearance certificate is not compulsory during the acquisition of land for projects for National Highways.
As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2016, obtaining an environment clearance was mandatory for all projects and activities in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 kms.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the clearance was mandatory for all construction activities. The court noted that the construction would happen only after the land is entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India and not at the time of acquisition. The court added that at the time of land acquisition, the land would only be vested with the Government. The court thus concluded that the clearance was not necessary at the time of acquisition but during the commencement of development activities.
Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act.
The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective.
Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by Director Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company Photon Factory, challenging a single judge's order directing them to repay Rs. 4.25 Crore along with 12% interest to production company RS Infotainment for failure to make a movie as agreed between the parties.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar, challenging his solitary confinement in prison during his incarceration in December 2025 in connection with an alleged extortion case.
Significant to note that Shankar is currently out on interim bail in the matter.
The court also disposed of a petition filed by her seeking specialised medical treatment for him in prison.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman also dismissed as infructuous an application filed by Shankar seeking review of the additional bail conditions imposed on him.
Though the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the interim bail granted to Shankar would expire on 25th March (tomorrow), and he may be directed to surrender before the police, the court made it clear that it could not issue such directions, and it was for the police to take steps against him if he did not surrender.
Case Title: S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently directed the Dindigul Taluk Police Station to register an FIR against a man, for allegedly forging the signature of his adopted mother in an attempt to loot her properties.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima also dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the man against alleged illegal detention of the mother by a care home, after noting that the mother was willingly staying at the Home, after facing life threat at the hand of the adopted son. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the man.
Case Title: XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (24 March), directed the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to conduct a day-to-day trial in connection with the sexual assault of a 10-year-old in Chennai's Anna Nagar area.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the court to expedite the trial and dispose of it at the earliest. The court also ordered adequate police protection for the victim and her family for a fair trial.
Case Title: S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a man's plea seeking permission to conduct daily protests till the end of World War.
Justice Victoria Gowri also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the man for filing frivolous petitions for his eccentric needs. The court noted that constitutional rights were meant to enlarge participation and could not be used to assert a right in total disregard of public order.
The court also criticised the manner in which the man had refused to hold the protest at an alternative site suggested by the State administration, near statues of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue, solely because he saw them as icons of casteism. The court noted that both the leaders were historical figures and the petitioner could not be justified in making such remarks against them.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (26 March), temporarily stayed all further proceedings in a case registered against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his comments against Saivism, Vaishnavism and women.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira allowed a plea filed by the former minister seeking a stay of the proceedings till the disposal of a plea filed by him challenging the Magistrate's order, taking cognisance of the complaint filed by BJP's Uma Anandan against Ponmudi. The court also allowed a plea dispensing with his further appearance before the Magistrate.
Ponmudi had filed the plea against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, through which the Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.
Case Title: C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over the body of 26-year-old Akash, who died due to alleged custodial violence in Manamadurai, being used as a "means of protest".
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman said that providing a decent burial is also a facet of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that neither the state nor the officials were preventing the conduct of the last rites, and it was for the family members of the deceased to proceed with his rites.
Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf.
Justice PB Balaji observed,
“At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”.