Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183 NOMINAL INDEX K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170 R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171 R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 172 Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173 M Karunanidhi v....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
NOMINAL INDEX
K Annamalai v V Piyush, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
M Karunanidhi v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
K Shankar and Others v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
Radhakrishnan Parthiban v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
A Mohandoss v. The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
Hari Nadar v The Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
RAS Senthilvel v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
V Malar v The Superintendent of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
State v M, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
M Raja v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
V Sarathkumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
REPORT
Madras High Court Stays Case Against BJP's K Annamalai Over Alleged Provocative Speech
Case Title: K Annamalai v V Piyush
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 170
The Madras High Court on Monday (20 April) stayed a case against former State President of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), K Annamalai, for his alleged provocative speech, remarks on political leader and freedom fighter Muthuramalinga Thevar.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar admitted a quash petition filed by K Annamalai and adjourned the case. Meanwhile, the court stayed the proceedings against him.
Madras High Court Dismisses DMK MP's Plea Seeking Registration Of ED Case Against 9 AIADMK Leaders
Case Title: R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 20) dismissed a batch of pleas filed by DMK MP R Girirajan, seeking registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against nine leaders of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in connection with the corruption and disproportionate assets case against them.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after hearing Senior Advocate NR Elango for Girirajan and Special Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate, N Ramesh. A detailed order is awaited.
Case Title: R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 172
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (21st April) dismissed a plea filed by DMK Rajya Sabha MP R Girirajan seeking registration of an Enforcement case against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and Kesava Vinayagam in connection with a cash-for-vote case.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the case and noted that it would pass orders similar to the one passed in the nine cases filed by the MP seeking action against AIADMK leaders.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Rajya Sabha MP R Girirajan had moved the Madras High Court, calling for action by Enforcement Directorate against BJP's State President Nainar Nagendran in connection with a 'cash for vote' case. Action was also sought against Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary for Tamil Nadu BJP.
Case Title: Va Pugazhendi v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 173
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to debar the current Leader of Opposition of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Edappadi K Palaniswami, from campaigning and contesting in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections for allegedly violating the Representation of People Act and making statements against the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister during his speeches.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the decision of the Supreme Court Jafar ImamNaqvi v. Election Commission of India, wherein the court had held that a public interest litigation pertaining to speeches delivered during the election campaign was not maintainable.
Case Title: M Karunanidhi v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 174
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a probe by the Election Commission of India and the Returning Officer (District Election Officer) to verify the financial disclosures made by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Aadhav Arjuna in his election affidavit filed for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the petition filed by M Karunanidhi, a resident of Chennai, seeking a probe. Another petition had been filed to debar Arjuna, but the same has not been numbered yet.
While dismissing the plea, the court noted that it could not pass such directions to the Election Commission of India once the election process had begun. The court noted that it was within the domain of ECI to probe into the financial disclosures.
Case Title: K Shankar and Others v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 175
The Madras High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to three men who were accused of abusing and attacking a college bus carrying 25 female students, while participating in a funeral procession in an inebriated condition.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the allegations were serious in nature, where a public vehicle carrying girl students was blocked, and the occupants were harassed. The court noted that the incident of violence, by persons under the influence of alcohol, could not be taken lightly.
Further, taking a serious view of repeated instances of violence during funeral processions, the Court has also directed the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary to examine the suitability of enacting legislation to govern funeral processions in the State, to ensure that public safety is not endangered while carrying out such processions. The court noted that despite a circular of the Director General of Police, incidents of disorderly conduct during processions continued, posing serious risks to bystanders, road users and the general public.
Madras High Court Directs Issuance Of “No Caste No Religion” Certificate To Cine Actor R Parthiban
Case Title: Radhakrishnan Parthiban v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 176
The Madras High Court has directed the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur to issue a “No Caste No Religion” certificate to cine actor R Parthiban.
Justice M Dhandapani took note of an order passed by a division bench of the High Court in which the court had directed the state to empower revenue authorities to issue a no caste no religion certificate. The court thus directed the authorities to issue a certificate to the actor and also appreciated the actor for seeking such a certificate.
Parthiban approached the court after his application seeking a no caste no religion certificate was not considered by the authorities. He pointed out that as per the previous order of the court, the certificate was to be issued within a month. In the present case, Parthian had filed an application with the Tahsildar, Velachery, which was subsequently transferred to the Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, on jurisdiction grounds. However, since the application had not been considered till date, he moved the High Court.
Case Title: A Mohandoss v. The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 177
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking action against Dr P Umanath, Secretary to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for alleged violation of the model code of conduct.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the allegations raised by the petitioner were vague and not supported by any materials. The court remarked that it could not delve into disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the absence of any materials.
The court also noted that the petitioner, as an interim relief, had sought the transfer of the officer, which was not maintainable in a public interest litigation.
Case Title: Hari Nadar v The Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 178
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (22 April) dismissed a plea filed by a man, currently detained in the Puzhal Central Prison, seeking direction to the Election Commission of India to permit him to vote in the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections, either through postal ballot or in person.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after taking note of the law in Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with the right to vote and bars persons confined in prison from voting.
Case Title: RAS Senthilvel v. The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 179
The Madras High Court has closed a plea alleging cash distribution by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party ahead of the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Polls.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the submissions by the Election Commission of India, informing that FIRs had been registered wherever violations had been observed, and a show cause notice had also been issued to the party. The ECI also informed that necessary action was being taken.
The court thus closed the plea filed by R.A.S Senthilvel, an advocate and Deputy Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) State Advocate Wing.
Case Title: V Malar v The Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 180
The Madras High Court has recently ordered compensation to a woman whose house was illegally demolished by a group of men. The court has also directed the men to immediately restore the demolished structure.
Highlighting the importance of shelter for a woman, Justice L Victoria Gowri observed that the dignity of a woman was inseparably connected to her right to shelter. The court also took note of the Supreme Court observations, stating that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution would also include the right to residence.
Case Title: State v M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 181
The Madras High Court recently commuted the death sentence of a father convicted for raping and impregnating his minor daughter.
Noting that spending the remainder of his life in prison with constant guilt of his actions would be a bigger punishment than death, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan ordered him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life without release, remission or commutation.
With respect to the sentence, though the court noted that the crime, by its very nature had shocked the conscience of the court, it also observed that the exercise of sentencing does not end with the gravity of the offence.
The court noted that the man, who was currently in jail, stood alone due to social and familial abandonment. The court noted that the man's family had openly sought the severest punishment against him and no one from the family or village had contacted him.
The court noted that the man was living a life of exile, which was not a mere incidental hardship but a continuing and severe form of punishment.
Citing Vedas, Madras High Court Orders Action Against Those Polluting Village Tank For Fish Farming
Case Title: M Raja v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 182
The Madras High Court recently cautioned against polluting any form of water sources for monetisation, like fish farming.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the Vedas had warned against polluting water, viewing it as a great sin and a punishable crime. Citing examples of Lord Krishna punishing serpent Kaliya for poisoning drinking water and Bharata's words to Kausalya, the court said that the Vedas have also talked about keeping the winds and rivers free of pollution.
Case Title: V Sarathkumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 183
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame a comprehensive scheme for the rehabilitation of transgender persons at the Taluk levels, ensuring them avenues for self-employment and suitable livelihood and ensuring their meaningful inclusion in the society.
Noting that transgender people are also children of God, Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the creator had not erred in their birth, but the tragedy was in the blindness of the society, which continued to drive the community to extreme marginalisation, like begging on the street.
The court underlined that transgender persons are entitled to be accepted as equals and the court could not be a mute spectator to the indignities suffered by the vulnerable class. The court added that the continued marginalisation of the community members reflected a collective societal failure to uphold the basic values of empathy, equality and fraternity and in discharge of the court's constitutional duty, as an instrument of justice to alleviate the hardship.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Case No: WP 15673 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Monday (20th April) issued notice on a plea seeking probe into alleged inconsistencies in the assets declared by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Chief Vijay for the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notices to Vijay, the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), the Election Commission of India, and the Returning Officers for the Perambur constituency and the Trichy (East) constituency.
While ordering notice, the court orally remarked that there was some irregularity (on Vijay's part) as almost ₹100 crores were not disclosed in his election affidavit in one of the constituencies.
Case Title: Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others
Case No: WP 15678 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Monday (20 April), admitted 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
The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice on a plea filed by Goutham Siva, a resident of Chennai. Notice has been issued to the Returning Officer (Mylapore Constituency), Returning Officer (District Election Officer), Chief Electoral Officer, the Election Commission of India, and the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation).
The petitioner alleged that there were discrepancies in the financial disclosure made by Soundararajan in 2024 and 2026. It was alleged that the assets declared by Soundararajan and her husband in 2024 were different from the assets declared by them in 2026. The petitioner had thus sought directions to the authorities to scrutinize the financial disclosures, sources of income, transactions, and statutory filings made by Soundararajan and take necessary action according to law.
Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Case No: WP 14645 of 2026
The Income Tax Department, on Monday (20th April), sought additional time for filing a detailed report explaining any alleged discrepancies in the financial statements filed by Deputy Chief Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, in his election affidavit for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections.
Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan sought time while appearing before the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. The bench had previously directed the department to file a report in a plea alleging that Udayanidhi had not disclosed the assets.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Freelance Editor Approaches Madras High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail
Case Title: Uma Shankar v State
Case No: Crl OP 10019 of 2026
Uma Shankar, a freelance editor, who worked in the making of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie, has approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving illegal streaming of the movie.
When the case came up before Justice C Kumarappan, Advocate Vijayan Subramanian, appearing for the de facto complainant KVN Productions (producer of the movie) strongly objected to the grant of anticipatory bail. He argued that the petitioner was one of the prime accused in the case, who had copied the movie in a hard disk and was involved in its circulation, even before the movie was officially released.
Subramanian also informed the court that the police had already arrested eight persons in the case, in which two were the petitioner's brothers. Thus, he opposed the grant of bail and sought permission for filing an intervening petition. The court allowed the request, directing the production company to file an intervening petition and adjourned the case to April 30.
The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (21 April) raised concerns about recurring fire accidents in the State and asked the government to file a report suggesting measures to prevent accidents at fireworks units.
The direction was made by a bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman in light of the recent fire tragedy that took place in the Virudhanagar district of Tamil Nadu on Sunday (19 April), where an explosion in a fireworks factory claimed 23 lives.
A second explosion at the unit left 17 injured, including police and firefighters. As per reports, it is one of the deadliest fire accidents in Tamil Nadu in recent times.