Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404 NOMINAL INDEX M v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 Paulpandiyan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391 C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392 T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393 SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
NOMINAL INDEX
M v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
Paulpandiyan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
PV Selvakumar v The Speaker and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
Madhavan Ramanuja Dasan v The Commissioner, HR & CE, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
Ananya Radhakrishnan v The Join Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
G Deva v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
R v J, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
M Chinnasamy v The Chairperson CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
Nambu Kaleeswaran and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
M Senthoorvelan v State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
REPORT
DNA Test Can't Be Ordered To Prove Bigamy When Paternity Is Not Directly In Issue: Madras High Court
Case Title: M v Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390
The Madras High Court recently held that a DNA test for paternity of the child does not have any bearing in determining the offence of bigamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390]
Justice Momhammed Shaffiq held that a DNA test could be ordered only when there is an eminent need for the same. The court added that the offence of bigamy was not one warranting a DNA analysis.
Discussing the decisions of the Supreme Court, the court noted that even in cases where DNA test was a mode to establish an essential element, it could be directed only after exhausting all other remedies and only as a last resort.
Case Title: Paulpandiyan v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391
The Madras High Court has highlighted that the judicial officers presiding over the Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should ensure that the child victim is made to feel comfortable in the court and should build a rapport with the child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391]
The court added that there was a need to understand the victim children and empathise with them. The court added that the role of the judge was to elicit the truth with great empathy and care.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that though the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy was conducting workshops to ensure that presiding officers do not call child witnesses to the court repeatedly, the court suggested that the officers could also be given training on the practical art of dealing with child witnesses.
Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja
Case Title: C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 18), rejected an election petition filed by a voter of Uthangarai Legislative Assembly constituency, challenging the victory of N Elaiyaraja, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazham (TVK) party candidate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392]
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed an application filed by the winning MLA seeking to reject the election petition and thus dismissed the plea. The judge also made it clear that he intended to decide all the election petitions pending before him within the 6-month time period provided under the Representation of People Act, and not to keep it pending for long.
The court noted that the petitioner had challenged the election on the ground that her nomination was rejected improperly. The court further noted that the petitioner's nomination was rejected since her name was not on the electoral roll. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the court aggrieved by the exclusion of her name from the electoral roll, and the plea was rejected by the court, holding that the petitioner had slept over her rights. The court thus held that there was no cause of action to challenge the victory.
Case Title: T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393
The Madras High Court recently held that a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) cannot enquire into allegations regarding the manner in which a police official handled complaints or registered a police case, unless human rights violations were shown. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393]
The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar thus set aside an order of the SHRC which had directed two police officers to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 each, based on a complaint by a woman. The court held that if there was police excess, the remedy was elsewhere and the SHRC could not inquire into the same.
Case Title: SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394
The Madras High Court has held that a person cannot seek a recount of votes merely on his belief that more people would vote for him for his good public service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected an election petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate Anthony Muthu challenging the victory of Indian National Congress candidate Tharahai Cuthbert during the 2026 assembly elections.
The court noted that Anthony had not placed any material raising a suspicion about the correctness of the count, and no other material was pleaded except his perception. The court noted that Muthu believed he would have received more votes in the election, particularly in 8 booths, where he had done good public service. The court held that such suspicion alone cannot be the basis to challenge the counting of the vote.
Case Title: PV Selvakumar v The Speaker and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395
The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Tamil Nadu Speaker's order dropping the disqualification proceedings against MLAs of the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party, who voted against the party whip during the confidence motion in favour of Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea on Tuesday (August 18).
Case Title: Madhavan Ramanuja Dasan v The Commissioner, HR & CE
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
The Madras High Court has reiterated that all living beings are equal before god and god does not discriminate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396]
Quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice E Manoharan observed as under,
“Before we proceed, it is necessary to extract the following from Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 9 Verse 29 [Translated] “I am equally disposed to all living beings. I am neither partial to anyone nor do I hate anyone. But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me and I am in them.”- Lord Krishna In the eyes of God, all living beings are equal and God does not discriminate,” the court said.
Case Title: Ananya Radhakrishnan v The Join Secretary to Government of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397
The Madras High Court has closed a public interest litigation challenging a Government Order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which mandates the order in which the National Song Vande Mataram and the National Anthem Jana Gana Mana are to be played during a state ceremony attended by the Governor of the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after taking note of a revised circular issued by the Ministry, which gave discretion to the States to decide when to render their State songs.
The court noted that the State of Tamil Nadu has also issued a Government Order mandating that the State song – Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu be sung at the beginning of programmes across educational institutions, government officers, etc in Tamil Nadu. Considering the circular and the GO, the bench closed the plea.
Case Title: G Deva v The Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 398
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (August 19), expressed disinclination to entertain a plea seeking direction to the authorities to remove all illegal banners, placards, and advertisements put up in public places, in violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules 2023.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination after noting that the petitioner had not specifically listed out the places where the banners were set up illegally. The court orally remarked that it could not entertain such vague petitions to remove banners from the entire city.
After the court expressed disinclination, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea with liberty to file a fresh petition before the concerned authorities by listing specific details on where the illegal banners were erected.
Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399
The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to constitute committees comprising Secretaries from various departments to address the systematic gaps in the implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in the State.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that there were correctional requirements which needed to be adopted by the stakeholders. The court added that the law relating to children was still developing and needed constant tweaking and readjustments.
Case Title: R v J
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400
The Madras High Court recently held that a re-marriage that took place post-divorce was valid when the appeal against the order of divorce was dismissed for default. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400].
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi noted that when there was no stay on the divorce order, the status of the woman was that of a “divorced woman” and she was thus entitled to remarry. The court thus refused relief to a husband, dismissing an appeal against the order of divorce.
During the course of the hearing, the wife informed the court that she had remarried in the meanwhile and thus the appeal itself had become infructuous. The court noted that though the appeal against the order of divorce was filed on time, it was dismissed for non-prosecution and later restored.
The court held that when the appeal was dismissed for default, the rigours of Section 15 of the Act would not apply.
Case Title: M Chinnasamy v The Chairperson CBFC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401
The Madras High Court has disposed of a plea seeking direction to the Central Board of Film Certification to reconsider the certificate of Chief Minister Vijay's “Jana Nayagan” movie for alleged objectionable scenes. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel had noted that the grievance of the petitioner was that in one scene of the movie, objectionable remarks were made against his village “Pappapatti” in Usialampatti Taluk, Madurai.
The court, however, perused the script of the movie and found that the movie only made reference to a fictional village “Pappampatti” and not the petitioner's village. The court remarked that though it aligned with the anguish expressed by the villagers, the reference in the movie was only to a fictional village and the producers never intended to harm the reputation of the village.
Case Title: Nambu Kaleeswaran and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402
After taking note of contradictory testimony of a Doctor in a POCSO case, the Madras High Court recently directed the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Director of Medical Education to issue a comprehensive circular/guideline to all Government Medical Colleges, Government Hospitals, etc, detaling the duties and responsibilities of Government medical professionals while acting as expert witnesses before court in POCSO cases [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402]
Justice B Pugalendhi added that the directions were intended to strengthen the quality of medical evidence before the court, to reinforce confidence in expert witnesses and minimise the possibility of errors. The court highlighted that the efficiency of the justice delivery system relied heavily on the credibility of expert evidence and thus every medical professional needed to discharge their duty with the highest standard of competence.
Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403
The Madras High Court has closed the plea filed by the Dravidar Kazhagam party seeking permission to conduct a bike rally against NEET and EWS in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after taking note of the State's submission that the police officials on the route of the rally have granted permission.
“The State Public Prosecutor submits that the police officials situated on route of the rally have all granted permission to the petitioner to take the bike rally. His statement is recorded. As the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted, this Writ Petition stands closed,” the court said.
The party had approached the court through its Vice President Kali Poongundran after the State police denied permission for conducting the bike rally. The party argued that it had a right of speech and expression to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Thus, the party argued that the order of denial for propagating against NEET and EWS was against the Constitution.
Case Title: M Senthoorvelan v State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404
The Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a law student and others for protesting against the conduct of a conference for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404]
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the student and others had raised their agitation in a peaceful and democratic manner and there was no allegation of any damage to public property. Thus, the court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others
Case No: WP Crl 1934 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Monday (August 17), orally remarked that the police should not be concerned with the content of a protest and are bound to protect it, as long as it doesn't fall under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which permits reasonable restrictions.
The comments were made by Justice V Lakshminarayanan while hearing a plea by the Dravida Kazhagam party, against the State's refusal to grant permission for a bike rally against the NEET and EWS reservations.
When the matter came up for hearing, State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan informed the court that the State was not against the principles for which the rally was being carried out. The prosecutor also informed the court that the State had even passed a resolution in the Assembly against NEET. However, when the prosecutor raised concern about the issue of EWS reservation being taken up by the party in the bike rally, the court orally remarked that the State should not be concerned with the content of the protest.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker, JCD Prabhakar, on Monday (August 17), informed the Madras High Court that he had accepted the resignation of six MLAs belonging to the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), after being satisfied that their resignations were voluntary.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a plea filed by the whip of the AIADMK party, Agri SS Krishnamurthy and others, challenging the acceptance of the resignation of 6 MLAs - S Jayakumar, Maragatham Kumaravel, P Sathyabama, Dr Esakki Subbaya, C Vijaya Bhaskar, and MR Vijayabhaskar, who won from the AIADMK party but later resigned from the party and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
Through an affidavit, the Speaker stated that when the resignations were handed over to him, he had inquired with each MLA to determine whether their decision to resign was voluntary or not. He further submitted that the resignations were accepted after being satisfied that it was made in free will and of their own volition and that there was no element of undue influence or coercion behind their decision to resign.
After Mediation Fails, Madras High Court To Hear Tamil Nadu Minister's Plea To Quash Assault Case
Case Title: Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another
Case No: Crl OP No. 18057 of 2026
The Madras High Court has decided to hear on merits a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Marie Wilson, seeking to quash a criminal case pending against him before the Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, for allegedly assaulting his sister-in-law.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan decided to consider the matter on merits after the counsel for the parties informed the court that the mediation talks had failed. Meanwhile, the court has dispensed with the personal appearance of the Minister before the Judicial Magistrate Court.
Case Title: A Arun IPS v A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar and Others
Case No: CS 195 of 2026
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by IPS officer and former Tamil Nadu DVAC Chief Arun seeking to restrain YouTuber Shankar @ Savukku Shankar from making defamatory content against him. The IPS officer has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs 1 Crore from Shankar.
Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi has issued notice to Shankar, Google, YouTube and X Corp (previously Twitter).
Arun has moved the court seeking to restrain Shankar, his agents, followers, or any other person acting on their behalf, from publishing, republishing, broadcasting, uploading, circulating, sharing, transmitting, posting, reposting, or disseminating any content containing defamatory allegations, insinuations, or imputations concerning Arun, whether by name, photograph, designation or otherwise.
Case Title: A. Velanganni Joseph v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Case No: WP(MD) No 23417 of 2026
The Madras High Court has called for a report from the State of Tamil Nadu on why Vice Chancellors were not being appointed to the 14 Universities in the State.
Justice B Pugalendhi directed the State to file a report. The court called for a report on being informed that most of the Universities in the State were now being administered by Registrars In-Charge and the decisions were being taken by the Convenor Committee.