Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196 NOMINAL INDEX MP Venkatesh v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185 MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186 I Periyasamy v The Deputy Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 187 K Mani v...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 196
NOMINAL INDEX
MP Venkatesh v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
I Periyasamy v The Deputy Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
K Mani v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
Arappor Iyakkam v The Director, DVAC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
Shayee Nisha v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
Balaji v. Mehaboobani, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
M Sonaimuthu v The Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
Sinora PS Ashok v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
Uma Shankar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
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
REPORT
Madras High Court Dismisses Fresh Plea Seeking ECI Probe Into Assets Declared By TVK Chief Vijay
Case Title: MP Venkatesh v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
The Madras High Court, on Monday (April 27) dismissed a fresh petition seeking an enquiry by the Election Commission of India, into the assets declared by actor and Chief of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Party Joseph Vijay for the 2026 TN Assembly Elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea and said that it would pass detailed orders later in the day.
Case Title: Keshaw Anand v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
The Madras High Court, on Monday (April 27), disposed of a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest and custody of the prime accused in the Noida Workers Protest case, despite the rejection of a transit remand by the Tiruchirappalli Magistrate Court.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Magistrate, Gautham Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, who, despite knowing that there was no valid transit remand, had remanded the accused. The court thus held that if it went into the validity of the custody and arrest, it would have to necessarily go into the merits of the order passed by the remand magistrate in Uttar Pradesh. The bench noted that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to go into the merits, and the same would be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: MJ Sankar v Vidhya Jayanth Kulkarni and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 186
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a man seeking a cash reward from the Central Bureau of Investigation for giving information regarding an illegal import of luxury cars.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the CBI's submission that it did not have any scheme for the grant of a reward to informers. Though the petitioner argued that he had received such a reward from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the court noted that the petitioner was barking up the wrong tree by claiming such compensation from the CBI.
Case Title: I Periyasamy v The Deputy Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 187
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (28 April), quashed an ECIR registered by the Enforcement Directorate against the Tamil Nadu Minister for Rural Development, I Periyasamy, in connection with an alleged housing plot allotment scam.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan quashed the ECIR after noting that the predicate offence, based on which the ECIR was registered by the ED, was already quashed by the court. The court noted that since the scheduled offence was quashed, there were no proceeds of crime, based on which the ED could pursue its case.
Case Title: K Mani v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 188
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking a direction to the Election Commission of India to obtain affidavits from candidates contesting in more than one constituency, assuring that if they resign from any of the constituencies after the election, they would be liable to pay all the election expenses incurred for that particular constituency before resigning.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that as of date, there was no law in force, empowering the Election Commission of India to direct a candidate to deposit election expenses in case of resignation from one constituency. Thus, noting that such a relief could not be granted, the court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v The Director, DVAC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
The Madras High Court has ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into allegations of Rs 397 crore scam in procuring transformer tenders during the tenure of Senthil Balaji as the Minister for Electricity and Prohibition and Excise from 2021 to 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to transfer all the files connected with the case to the officer in charge of investigation, who shall be appointed within 2 weeks of the order.
The court has also asked the CBI to conduct a de novo investigation based on the materials. The court has also directed the State government, the TANGEDCO, and the DVAC to extend full cooperation to CBI for conducting an effective investigation and ensure all the documents are placed before the central agency.
Case Title: Shayee Nisha v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 190
The Madras High Court recently criticised a Government Order issued by the Human Resource Management Department of the State Government, restricting the maternity leave to a period of 12 weeks (3 months) for third pregnancy.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that there was no justification in bringing such a Government Order, which ran contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court on various occasions. The court added that the suffering of a woman is the same in all pregnancies, be it first, second, or third, and thus no discrimination should be shown in approving maternity leave.
Case Title: Balaji v. Mehaboobani
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 191
The Madras High Court recently appointed a Hindu couple as the legal guardians of a minor female Muslim child. In doing so, the court set aside an order passed by the Family Court in Madurai, rejecting the Hindu couple's plea to be appointed as legal guardians.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that the Hindu couple had been taking care of the child right from her birth. The court also noted that the child had been calling the couple father and mother and calling her own biological mother as aunty. Thus, the court noted that it would be in the best interest of the child to appoint the Hindu couple as her legal guardian.
Case Title: M Sonaimuthu v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 192
The Madras High Court recently ordered police protection for conducting the Thenur Mandagapadi ceremony during the Chithirai festival in Madurai.
Highlighting the importance of the festival, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the festival represents the composite culture of Madurai by blending both Shaivite and Vaishnavite traditions, and thus symbolising practices associated with communal harmony.
The court thus underlined that no person or group should be permitted to create disorder in such festivals, in the name of rivalry. The court highlighted that devotion could not be allowed to descend into disturbance and customs cannot be converted into conflict.
Case Title: Sinora PS Ashok v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
The Madras High Court on Thursday closed a plea for police protection filed by TVK's Harbour constituency candidate, following alleged attack by DMK Minister P. Sekar Babu and his associates.
Justice Nirmal Kumar closed the plea on being informed that police protection had already been granted to the candidate.
In his plea, the petitioner, Sinora PS Ashok, submitted that he had contested from the Harbour constituency against the DMK candidate Sekar Babu, who was currently the Minister of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in the Tamil Nadu cabinet.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Freelance Editor
Case Title: Uma Shankar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 194
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (30 April), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Uma Shankar, one of the accused in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan”, starring Vijay.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea after noting the submissions of the State informing the court that there were materials against the accused and a custodial interrogation was necessary. The anticipatory bail plea was also opposed by KVN Productions, producers of the movie and the de facto complainant.
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.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026
Tamil Nadu Minister for Municipal Administration, Urban and Water Supply, KN Nehru, has approached the Madras High Court seeking a review of the court's earlier order, directing the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR against the Minister and others for alleged bribery in appointments to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
Appearing before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (appearing for the Minister), submitted that the bench had ordered the registration of a case against him without even hearing him.
Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram v The Deputy Director, ED
Case No: CMA 996 of 2026
Sivaganga MP Karti P Chidambaram has approached the Madras High Court, challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) at Delhi (PMLA Appellate Tribunal), dismissing his plea against the attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate in the INX Media money laundering case.
When the matter came up before Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayanan, appearing for Karthi Chidambaram, informed the court that he had filed a similar plea seeking similar relief in another case. He requested the court to tag the two matters. The court allowed the request and directed the registry to tag the two matters.