Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389 NOMINAL INDEX R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 Sherip and Another v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374 Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375 GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
NOMINAL INDEX
R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
Sherip and Another v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
K.Balu v Chairman Bar Council of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
V. Muthupandi v Secretary to Government, Public Department & another,, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
SR Sekar v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
Nakkeeran Gopal v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
J.Ilayas & Anr. v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu and batch , 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
R Balaraman v Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization & others, 2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383
G. R. Thangavelu v G.R.Indira & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
Pradip C Nair and Another v The District Collector and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners v The Commissioner Greater Corporation of Chennai & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
S.D.S.Selvam v D. Ilavarasi & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
Ramesh v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
REPORT
Case Title: R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373
The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by police personnel while summoning persons in connection with a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that while courts do not normally interfere with the investigation conducted by police officers, it could also not turn a blind eye to harassment by police officers under the guise of investigation.
The court thus directed the police to issue written summons to a person under Section 179 BNSS, specifying the particular date and time for appearing before the police for enquiry/investigation. The court further directed that the minutes of the enquiry should be recorded in the general diary/station diary or the daily diary of the police station.
Case Title: Sherip and Another v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man for circulating a video alleging that the police were foisting false cases against Muslims. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the statement, even if taken in entirety, was only a political statement. The court thus noted that an offence under Section 295, as alleged in the present case, was not made out since there was no allegation of any act involving destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship.
Case Title: Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team in every district to investigate fraudulent insurance claims involving fake accidents, misrepresentation of fact, forged insurance policies, fabricated injuries, etc. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has directed the State and DGP to ensure that the SIT is constituted in every district and functions in strict compliance with the court's directions. The court added that the SIT can also initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the persons involved in making fake insurance claims.
Case Title: GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376
The Madras High Court recently held that the vote of a member of a bar association cannot be restricted citing “One Bar One Vote” when the association has not amended its rule for such restriction. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that when the association members were happy with the existing Rules and had not brought in any resolution or amendment to change the same, the members of the association could not be prevented from voting, stating that they had voted in elections for another bar association.
Case: K.Balu v Chairman Bar Council of India & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377
The Madras High Court has directed that an Interim Committee comprising elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall exclusively manage its affairs and enrolment functions until a permanent statutory committee is formally constituted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377]
The present petitions arose from “administrative interregnum” regarding the interim governance, enrolment and administrative management of the State Bar Council. The petitioners argued that after new members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were elected, an interim arrangement involving unelected persons was subsequently formed by the Bar Council of India to manage the state council's affairs. This violated the “democratic mandate” of the Advocates Act, 1961, the petitioners contended.
Disability Reservation Can't Be Claimed For Engagement As Govt Lawyer: Madras High Court
Case: V. Muthupandi v Secretary to Government, Public Department & another,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378
The Madras High Court has held that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in Government establishment under Section 34 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act does not extend to engagement of Government lawyers as such engagement is contractual and cannot be equated with appointment to Government service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378]
The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar said:
“The concept of appointment into Government service cannot be equated with engagement of a lawyer by the Government to represent the Government cases. Terms and conditions of appointment in Government departments and service conditions are distinct and different than that of the engagement of a lawyer to represent Government cases, which is on contractual basis".
Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379
The Madras High Court recently quashed a case registered against YouTuber Karthik Gopinath, who collected money using a crowdfunding app for a temple's renovation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that although the money was collected without prior approval from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, he did not have any criminal intention of misappropriating the funds. The court also noted that there was no allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss since the money was duly handed over to the court account.
Case Title: SR Sekar v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380
The Madras High Court has deferred the framing of charges in a cash-for-vote case registered against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and others during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan deferred the framing of charges till August 19. The court was hearing a plea filed by BJP's SR Sekar to quash the case registered against him, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, George Town. Noting that the case was posted on August 12 for framing of charges, the court directed the Magistrate not to frame charges till August 19.
Case Title: Nakkeeran Gopal v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381
The Madras High Court has said that an accused in a criminal case cannot seek a general direction asking police not to harass him/her. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381]
“When the petitioner is an accused in a registered case, the prayer for a general direction not to harass cannot be entertained by this Court,” the court observed.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant protection to journalist Nakeeran Gopal in his plea seeking direction to the police not to harass him. The court, however, added that Gopal would be at liberty to challenge the conditions that were imposed in the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, if they interfered with his fundamental right to freedom. The court added that the police could not seek information which was not legally permissible or not directly connected with the alleged offence.
Case title: J.Ilayas & Anr. v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382
A full bench of the Madras High Court has held that Tamil Nadu Waqf Board cannot appoint Mutawallis for Waqf properties governed by deeds, decrees, court orders or schemes as per Section 66 of Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act 1995, and in such cases the State Government is the appointing authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382]
For context a mutawalli is the manager, custodian, or superintendent of a waqf property.
The court held that Section 32 which governs general superintendence power of the Waqf board over waqf properties is not rendered otiose by Section 66 clarifying that the latter does not curtail the board's powers in Section 32 and must be read harmoniously.
Case: R Balaraman v Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization & others,
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court has set aside the suspension of an explosives dealer's licence, holding that an order suspending or revoking a licence under the Explosives Rules 2008 must be served in the manner prescribed under Rule 118(3) which contemplates service by post at the address of the licensee. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383]
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that uploading the suspension order on the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) web portal could not constitute valid service in the absence of any statutory provision permitting such a mode of service.
Case: G.R.Thangavelu v G.R.Indira & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384
The Madras High Court has held that minor corrections, interpolations, use of different ink and non-registration of a holographic Will cannot, by itself, constitute suspicious circumstances when the testator's handwriting and signature are undisputed and the document indicates that the testator consciously applied his mind while making the bequests. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384]
The Bench held that where the handwriting and signature of the testator are undisputed, “some minor corrections, interpolations and some alterations” made by him in his own handwriting per se could not be termed as suspicious circumstance to dispute the Will.
Case Title: Pradip C Nair and Another v The District Collector and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385
The Madras High Court recently observed that only a parent or a person above the age of 60 years can maintain a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385]
Justice M Dhandapani thus interfered with an order passed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, directing payment of Rs. 6000 per month as maintenance to the complainant. The court noted that the complainant was neither a parent nor a senior citizen since she had not attained 60 years of age.
Case: Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners v The Commissioner Greater Corporation of Chennai & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386
Holding that land earmarked as 'Community Hall' or for any specific purpose by Town Planning Authority cannot be used for any other purpose including public purpose, the Madras High Court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to demolish a church illegally built on such land within 2 weeks. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386]
The Court found that the disputed land, measuring about 15 grounds and 1,625 sq.ft. and earmarked as a Community Hall in the layout approved in 1974, was being used for running a hotel and a church by the layout promoter. The Court noted that there was no material to show that permission had been obtained for putting up the church.
Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387
The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 14), permitted the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a "Tricolour Flag Yatra" in Coimbatore city in connection with the Independence Day celebrations.[2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387]
Though the BJP had initially proposed to conduct the rally on August 13, the State denied permission for the rally at the proposed location. On Friday, after deliberations, the BJP agreed to conduct the rally at another location, which had been designated for public meetings (involving more than 5,000 participants) by the District Collector.
While disposing of the plea, Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the court was shocked that the State had denied permission for a rally carrying the national flag on the grounds of law and order situation. The court added that irrespective of the party, everyone was bound to respect the flag. The court added that if someone wanted to respect the flag, the police should permit and join them, instead of obstructing the same.
Case: S. D. S. Selvam v D. Ilavarasi & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388
The Madras High Court has held that a father gifting property to his daughter when she was a minor by way of a gift deed as part of matrimonial settlement proceedings, cannot be treated as part of joint family property unless it is proved to have been purchased from joint family fund.
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman was hearing a batch of appeals arising from a dispute over a property purchased in 1989 in the name of S Duraimanickam, father of Ilavarasi. S Duraimanickam's brother, SDS Selvam, later claimed that the property was actually purchased from the joint family nucleus and therefore could not have been settled by Duraimanickam in favour of his daughter.
Case Title: Ramesh v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389
The Madras High Court has stayed an investigation by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption against a fitness centre owner in a corruption case involving Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered a stay to balance the rights and protect the interest of the petitioner.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026
The Madras High Court has on Monday (August 10), reserved verdict on a plea filed by former Minister KN Nehru seeking review of the order directing registration of a corruption FIR against him.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved the order after hearing Nehru, Tamil Nadu DVAC, and the State. The court has also extended its interim order, directing the DVAC not to take any coercive action against Nehru till the pronouncement of orders.
The case relates to an order passed by the High Court in February this year directing the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case forthwith based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a corruption case involving the former Minister. Nehru and his brothers approached the court seeking a review of this order, arguing that they were not heard.
Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others
Case No: WP Crl 1934 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 11), asked the State Government why it could not permit the Dravidar Kazhagam party to conduct a bike rally against NEET and EWS in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Justice Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that the organisation was only expressing its right by riding the bike and not indulging in any anti-social activities. When the State argued that there were chances of untoward incidents happening, the judge questioned if the mighty state was pleading helplessness. The court thus orally remarked that the State should permit the bike rally and not suppress the citizens.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) on Wednesday told the Madras High Court that the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker has no "constitutional immunity" from appearing before the Court.
The submissions were made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan in a petition filed by AIADMK party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthi, challenging the Speaker's acceptance of the resignations of MLAs who had contested the Assembly elections as AIADMK members and subsequently joined Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for the party whip Agri SS Krishnamurthi, argued that the court could not accept the counter filed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary on behalf of the Speaker, without the latter submitting himself to the court's jurisdiction. It was argued that the plea raised questions which needed to be answered by the Speaker.
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court against the recent proposal of the Tamil Nadu government to sell alcohol through the online portal of Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
The plea has been filed by Advocate K Balu, President of the Advocates' Forum for Social Justice. He argued that the Government Order is illegal, unjust, a colourable exercise of powers and against the interest of the public. He argued that the online purchasing scheme was against the rules and contrary to the judgments of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
The Madras High Court has issued a circular for the playing of the National Song – Vande Mataram during the Independence Day celebration to be held at the Principal Bench of Madras High Court at Chennai, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and the District Judiciary in the State.
A circular issued by the Registrar General said that as per the advisory issued by the Government of India under the Har Ghar Tiranga Campaign 2026, commencing 150 years of the national song, the national song would be played at the beginning of the celebration, followed by the hoisting of the flag and the National Anthem.
However, following the circular, the Madras High Court Bar Association at Madurai has written a letter to the Registrar General expressing displeasure over the exemption of the State song - Tamil Thai Vaazhthu, from the Independence Day celebration.