Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227 NOMINAL INDEX K Punniyamoorthy and another v M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195 G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196 Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
NOMINAL INDEX
K Punniyamoorthy and another v M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
P v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
B Gurunathan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
M v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
Rajesh v State and other connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
K Surya v/s Secretary to the Government & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
REPORTS
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy and another v M/s Escape Artists Motion Pictures and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 195
The Madras High Court has cleared the way for the release of the Tamil movie “Dhruva Natchathiram” starring Vikram and directed by Gautham Vasudev Menon.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has ordered that an escrow account be created in the name of Kondaduvom Entertainment, a company owned by Menon. The court has directed that all the transactions that are to be done before and after the movie's release be done through the account. An advocate commissioner has also been appointed to oversee the transactions in the account.
The court passed the directions in an application filed by two creditors of Gautham Vasudev Menon and his production house, seeking to restrain the movie's release in light of pending dues. In 2023, the court passed an interim injunction order restraining the release of the movie.
Madras High Court Asks TN Govt To Include Life Of Dr. Ambedkar In School Curriculum
Case Title: G Rajesh and Another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to take necessary policy decisions to include lessons in the Social Science curriculum, including the life and contribution of Dr BR Ambedkar and the role played by him in the freedom movement and democratic nation-building.
Justice Victoria Gowri emphasised that the school system should not just teach the Constitution as dry institutional facts, but teach it through the lives of people who shaped it. The court stressed that to understand Ambedkar is to understand why the constitution must be social.
The court added that though it was not for the judiciary to tell the State to adopt a particular policy or dictate what should be included in the curriculum, it was constrained to emphasise that the constitutional value of fraternity cannot be left to the uncertainties of social transmission. The court added that it was time for the State to recognise that constitutional literacy was a component of social responsibility.
Case Title: Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the detention order passed against a YouTuber, Varaaki, noting that the State had unnecessarily targeted him.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan also directed the state to pay Rs. 50,000 to him for his illegal detention.
It may be noted that in December 2025, the court had released Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, on personal bond. During that time, the court had remarked that the state should not routinely approve the detention orders and that while detaining a person, there should be application of mind. The bench had also remarked that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue State for appropriate relief including claiming damages.
Case Title: Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court has ordered the Indian High Commission in Colombo to consider granting emergency visa to a Sri Lankan national to come to India to aid his ailing mother.
Justice M Dhandapani noted that there were no adverse materials against the person, and in such circumstances, his continued blacklisting would be disproportionate. The court also noted that the mother was a senior citizen who was in need of immediate care. Thus, citing humanitarian grounds, the court was inclined to grant him limited relief.
Case Title: P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court recently criticised the acts of certain persons who threw footwear (chappals) at devotees participating in the procession of Lord Kallazhar Temple during the Chithirai festival in Madurai.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that such acts could not be brushed aside as stray acts of hooliganism, as such acts not only affected the public order but also offended constitutional morality. The court also added that India's secular spirit did not require an indifference to religion but required the protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance.
The court observed that the principle of fraternity embodied in the preamble of the Constitution obligated the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions were celebrated in peace, dignity, and mutual respect. The court also noted that though maintenance of public order was the duty of the executive, when disruption was apprehended, judicial directions were warranted.
Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea filed by filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor seeking to reject a plaint filed against them in connection with the late actor Sridevi's property near the East Coast Road.
Noting that the cause of action raised against the trio is not sustainable, Justice TV Tamilselvi remarked that the “vexatious” claim was made only to grab the property by abusing the process of law, and the same was not permissible under law. The court thus noted that the trial judge's order, refusing to reject the plaint, was liable to be set aside.
Case Title: S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against a group of lawyers for disrupting the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No. V at Madurai.
Noting that there was no justification to quash the proceedings, Justice Victoria Gowri highlighted the importance of respect between the bar and the bench. The court remarked that the dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. The court thus highlighted that the law expected both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline.
The court also recorded appreciation for the young judicial officer for choosing to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the judicial office, though attempts were made to compromise the institutional authority.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013
Case Title: N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) in 2013.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that some of the petitioners had challenged the selection process for deciding the ranking of candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the viva voce, and thus argued that the Selection Commission was vested with excessive powers.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench observed that once a Selection Committee is formed to assess the performance of the candidates, their discretion cannot be interfered with unless serious and valid concerns are raised. In the present case, the court noted that there was no justification to the grievances raised by the petitioners, which were vague and general. The court also added that after participating in the selection process, the candidates could not challenge the same without concrete reasons.
Case Title: S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
The Madras High Court recently observed that corrective measures taken by a teacher cannot be criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Justice Victoria Gowri remarked that while offences under the POCSO Act have to be dealt with seriousness, the sanctity of the Act should also be maintained, which is to protect the genuine victims. The court noted that if a teacher performing a legitimate disciplinary function is exposed to criminal prosecution on exaggerated allegations, the Act would be misused and it would corrode the educational institution.
Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against VCK Chief Thol Thirumavalavan
Case Title: Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court has quashed an alleged hate speech case registered against Thol Thirumavalavan, chief of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that although the complaint was lodged in 2019, the final report was filed only in 2025, contrary to the three-year time frame prescribed by law. The court also noted that the prior sanction was not obtained as mandated under Section 196(1A) of the CrPC.
The court thus opined that the proceedings had to be quashed and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: P v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court has recently held that a wife going to her mother's house for delivery and remaining there after the birth of the child cannot be seen as an act of desertion when the husband was not present in the country during the time.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar also noted that the husband had made baseless allegations against the wife, saying that she was in close contact with a male person. The court noted that such acts would drive the wife to grieve over the allegation and remain at her mother's place, and the same could not be seen as desertion.
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test.
The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim order in a plea filed by former Minister R Periakaruppan alleging that one postal vote of No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai District, (from where he contested as DMK candidate), which was in his favour, had been wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency of Tiruppattur District.
The bench however made it clear that the order "should not be treated as one setting aside his winning or one confirming it". It said that a "strong prima facie case" has been made out by Periakaruppan.
Case Title: Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court recently refused ordinary leave to a convict for undergoing fertility treatment.
Dismissing a petition filed by the wife of the convict, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the court could not merely act upon the right of the convict's wife to have a child but also had to consider the interest of the child, which will have to carry the stigma throughout its life.
Noting that it cannot turn a blind eye to the reality and had to consider the welfare of the child, the court said that it was worried about the consequences exerted on the child by society. The court also pointed out that the reformative theory was focused on the convict and did not deal with his/her desire to have a child. The court underlined that the convict or his wife did not have any right to place a child in an unfortunate position for the rest of its life.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Attempt To Murder Case
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an attempt to murder case.
Granting him conditional bail, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that a person's liberty cannot be taken lightly just because the allegations are grave. The court said that when the presence of an accused can be secured through conditions, continued incarceration was not warranted.
As such the court granted bail to Shankar upon him executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Madhavaram Judicial Magistrate. The court has also asked Shankar to appear before the police daily and to co-operate with the investigation.
The case was registered against Shankar for allegedly attacking a Sub-Inspector of Police while Shankar was being brought to Puzhal prison from Oncole (Andhra Pradesh), after being arrested in connection with an alleged cheating and extortion case.
Case Title: B Gurunathan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
While granting bail to a father who was accused of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was an alarming trend where officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, etc., were insisting children to make sexual abuse allegations against their fathers.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that in many cases, the children might be approaching these authorities only to ventilate their grievances relating to the domestic discord happening between their parents. However, instead of addressing the issue appropriately, officers were compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members.
Case Title: Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths to positively consider a woman's plea to add the name of her foster parents in the birth certificate without removing the name of her biological parents.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted that the right to construct one's own identity regarding gender, familial, and societal context was a part of right to privacy. The court noted that the woman was not seeking to remove her biological parent's name from the birth certificate but only to add the name of her foster parents. The court thus noted that the woman was within her right to construct her identity in the society, which was part of her fundamental right.
Case Title: Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court has reiterated that grama natham lands (village land) that are owned by the Government should be utilised for public purposes by constructing dwelling houses and should not be left to be encroached by greedy men.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender added that the Government was empowered to regulate the natham lands and utilise them in terms of the Revenue Standing Orders for the landless or homeless.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court recently stayed a notice of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tamil Nadu directing removing/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
Noting that the notice did not specify the reasons for blocking, Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar held that when state restricts speech, the same should be through reasons and not by cryptic command. The bench remarked that political opinions cannot be removed merely because they are sharp, inconvenient, satirical, dissenting or unpalatable.
The court added that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution didn't just protest polite and agreeable speech but also protected criticism, dissent, satire, political disagreements and public debate. The court added that a democracy cannot take criticism as disorder, satire as sedition, dissent as danger or opinion as offence.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to ensure that the schools and public buildings, which are usually notified as polling booths for elections, should be made wheelchair accessible by constructing permanent ramps.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the ECI to take steps to make sure that its website was made easily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.
Case Title: M v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of adultery by his wife, stating that though there was no direct evidence of sexual intercourse, there was evidence regarding close proximity of the wife with another married man.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy, and it is very difficult to produce direct evidence of sexual intercourse to prove adultery.
Case Title: S v K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
While granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's act of marrying off their daughter without informing him would cause him mental agony and constitute mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar held that as a parent, the husband would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain, and suffering, which could never be compensated.
The court also noted that the husband's later conduct, of preventing the wife from entering the house, was also due to the mental scar that he had suffered.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an alleged extortion case.
Justice R Sakthivel granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.
The case is registered under Sections 296(b), 351(2), 308(3), 131, 115(2), 109, 353 (1)(b), and 61 (2)(b) of the BNS over allegations of Shankar demanding a sum of Rs 10,00,000 for removing an allegedly defamatory post.
Taking note of the fact that the chargesheet had been filed and taken on file, the court was inclined to grant bail and ordered accordingly. The court has however, asked Shankar to appear before the Adambakkam police daily.
Case Title: P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the recent press note of the Tamil Nadu Government regarding its decision to close 717 TASMAC liquor shops in the State, which are located within 500 meters of places of worship, educational institutions, and bus stands.
Calling it a good decision, Justice GR Swaminathan said that such policy decisions of the government could not be challenged by way of a writ petition by men who had leased their land for the setting up of TASMAC shops.
The court also recorded the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who informed the court that TASMAC would reimburse land owners, where the shops had been closed in furtherance of the policy decision.
Case Title: Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May), closed a habeas corpus plea challenging the detention of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan took note of the Government Order passed by the Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department revoking his detention.
Thus, noting that the plea has become infructuous, the court closed the plea.
Meanwhile, another plea filed by Shankar's nephew seeking to take him to a speciality hospital for comprehensive cardiac evaluation and for giving him necessary treatment under the supervision of qualified cardiologists has been posted to next week.
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May) dismissed a plea seeking to ban or regulate the recently released Tamil movie "Karuppu" starring Suriya and Trisha and directed by RJ Balaji. The plea had alleged that the movie portrayed the Indian judiciary in bad light.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that anyone could say anything in a free country like India. The court further orally remarked that the portrayal in the movie was, in fact, a matter for introspection.
Case Title: Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has held that a mother should not be made to undergo DNA test to prove her maternity while donating kidney to her child.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to permit a mother to donate one of her kidneys to her son, who was suffering from systemic hypertension chronic kidney disease stage-V and needed urgent kidney transplantation.
The court remarked that when the donor herself was saying that the recipient was her son, it was not understandable on why the request was ignored.
Case Title: R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court recently refused to permit the installation of CCTV cameras near a village lake to prevent activities like illegal fishing, earth mining, etc near it.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the village lake was a traditional resource used by the villagers, who used it for multiple purposes like bathing, swimming, and leisure activities.
The court added that these were semi-private spaces of the villagers, and CCTV surveillance in such places would be an excessive intrusion. The court also said that the state should not indulge in such intrusion without a strong justification.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Of Nine Accused Persons
Case Title: Rajesh v State and other connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of nine accused persons in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan” starring Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay.
Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the bail pleas of the accused persons – Rajesh, Selvam, Prashanth, Rajini, Srinath @ Sriram, Sanjay, Bala @ Balakrishnan, Manigandan, Ruthran. On April 30, the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai had dismissed the bail pleas of the accused.
Case Title: Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to political commentator and scientist Dr V Ponraj in a case related to alleged defamatory statements against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
Justice R Sakthivel was inclined to grant anticipatory bail after noting that Ponraj had deep rots in the society and was not likely to abscond. Thus, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary in the case, the court granted bail. However, the court has asked Ponraj to appear before the Cuddalore Police once every week and to appear and sign before the CCB Cyber Crime Wing Chennai twice every week.
While the court refrained from commenting on Ponraj's intention while making the statement, it said that Ponraj, who claimed to be a respectable person in society, should have been careful during a public interview, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.
Case title: K Surya v/s Secretary to the Government & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 224
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 27) directed Tamil Nadu's Chief Secretary to ensure that no cow or calf is slaughtered on the eve of Bakrid. It my be noted that Bakrid or Eid-ul-Zuha will be celebrated tomorrow i.e. May 28.
A division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan passed the order in a plea seeking direction to the state authorities, including the Director General of Police, to take steps to prevent the slaughter of cows in public places.
The court observed that as per Article 48 of the Constitution, the State is bound to take steps to prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The court also pointed out that cow was considered as a reverred animal during the constituent assembly debates and even during the rule of Muslim rulers, cow slaughter had been banned.
Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court, on Wednesday (May 27) that it intends to file a curative petition against the acquittal of Dashwanth, the sole accused in the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in Chennai in 2017.
The submission was made in a plea seeking directions to the state government to file such a curative petition against the acquittal of Dashwanth.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan, however, took note of the submissions made by the state government that it intended to file a curative petition in the case. Taking note of the submission, the court closed the plea.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 226
The Madras High Court, on Friday (29 May), closed a plea seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the alleged sexual assault and killing of a minor girl in Sulur, Coimbatore.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that the investigation was "prima facie" moving in the right direction. When the petitioner's counsel informed the court that social media posts were being made giving details of the minor's family and other theories were being made in connection with the crime, the court said it would pass detailed orders in this aspect.
When the matter was taken up on Friday, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the State was taking best efforts in the case. The AG said that the investigation in the case (including DNA tests) was being fast-tracked and a special public prosecutor had been appointed who was instructed to give utmost attention to the case and ensure strict justice.
Case Title: Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 227
The Madras High Court on Friday (May 29th), censured former Commissioner of Police and current Chief of Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, A Arun IPS for having passed a detention order against a realtor in an alleged fraud case.
While quashing the detention order, a division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the detention order was passed for extraneous reasons.
Noting that Arun habitually passed such orders which were ultimately quashed by the court, the bench said that Arun ought to know that preventive detention orders could not be passed recklessly.