Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413 NOMINAL INDEX TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405 R Ramaswamy v The Regional Passport Office and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406 B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407 Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
NOMINAL INDEX
TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
R Ramaswamy v The Regional Passport Office and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
S. Srinivasan Menon v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The District Collector and Others v G Manickam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
Mohamed Thalha v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
REPORT
Case Title: TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405
The Madras High Court has made it clear that an Executive Officer (EO) appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to manage a temple cannot interfere with the religious activities, customary practices and traditions of the temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405]
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that as per Section 45(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, an EO can only exercise functions with respect to the properties of the temple. The bench thus held that the EO cannot deal with any aspect of the temple which has a religious character.
Case Title: R Ramaswamy v The Regional Passport Office and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406
The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband or wife cannot be denied the right to travel abroad merely because a dispute between the spouses was pending.
Justice V Lakshminarayan thus granted relief to a husband who was asked to return his passport on account of pending domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife. The court held that the domestic violence proceedings were civil in nature till an order under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed.
Case Title: B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407
The Madras High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly being involved in a terror conspiracy in support of ISIS and Daesh. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407]
Though the accused argued that potassium nitrate, sugar and batteries were purchased for agricultural and daily use, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan rejected the argument. The court held that though the items taken separately would not be of much consequence, the prosecution case was that the items were used for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad.
Wiping Minor's Tears, Holding Her Hand Without Sexual Intent Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court
Case Title: Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408
The Madras High Court recently held that any contact during the ordinary course of human dealings, like taking a hand, touching a shoulder, wiping tears, and consoling someone, would not inherently be sexual, and any sexual intention would have to be gathered through surrounding circumstances. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408]
Justice R Vijayakumar thus quashed a criminal case registered against a constable who was accused of offences under the POCSO Act, after noting that the man had only consoled the minor girl, with whom he was in a romantic relationship.
The court noted that the provision does not penalise physical contact alone unless it is with sexual intent. Thus, the court highlighted that sexual intent was the foundation for proving the offence.
Case Title: S. Srinivasan Menon v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409
The Madras High Court has held that Malayalam is a minority language in the State of Tamil Nadu and thus, the minority status of a college being run for protecting the interest of the Malayalam-speaking minority in Tamil Nadu would not be affected merely because the college is being administered by members of the Nair community, which is a majority in Kerala. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel was hearing a public interest litigation filed by a man seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu State Government, Director of Collegiate Education, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, The Manomaniam Sundaranar University and the District Collector of Kanyakumari to cancel the minority status of Sree Ayyappa College for Women.
Case Title: Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 410
The Madras High Court has directed all Principal District Judges and other judges in the District Judiciary to dispose of petitions for cancellation of bail within 4 weeks of service of notice. [2026 LiveLaw(Mad) 410]
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B Murugesan observed as under,
“In view of the above, the Principal District Judges and the other Judges where petitions for cancellation of bail are pending, shall ensure that such petitions are decided within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing immediately after the service of notice,” the court said.
The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea seeking to produce a man, who was detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
Cockfights Are Illegal, Previous Orders Permitting Them 'Totally Unwarranted': Madras High Court
Case Title: The District Collector and Others v G Manickam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411
The Madras High Court recently held that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act prohibits cockfights and thus, the same are illegal and cannot be permitted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel allowed a revision petition filed by the District Collector of Thanjavur and held that a previous order passed by a division bench of the court, which permitted the conduct of a cockfight subject to certain conditions, was unwarranted and contrary to law.
Case Title: Mohamed Thalha v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412
The Madras High Court has called for the setting up of two special courts for exclusively hearing cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in line with a judgment of the Supreme Court directing the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412]
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan have suo motu impleaded the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts – II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai in a case and sought a compliance report with respect to the directions.
Case Title: Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413
The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 28), orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and they are expected to appear before courts where cases are pending against them. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Marie Wilson to appear before the Judicial Magistrate in Puducherry in connection with an assault case pending against him.
The court directed the Minister's counsel to inform, by afternoon, the date on which the Minister was willing to appear before the Magistrate and passed over the hearing to the post-noon session. When the matter was again taken up post noon, the counsel assured the court that the Minister would appear before the court after he was back in the town and requested to permit withdrawal of the plea. The court took one record the submission and closed the plea.
The court orally remarked that Wilson could not remain absent before the court and had to appear before the judge. It recollected that PV Narasimha Rao had appeared before the court even when he was holding the office of the Prime Minister of the country. The judge thus orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and had to appear before the court.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India
Case No: WP No 27064 of 2026
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Monday (August 24) informed the Madras High Court that it was not intending to conduct bye-elections to five constituencies in Tamil Nadu - including the seat vacated by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay- till the election petitions concerning the constituencies were decided by the courts.
The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. The bench has extended its interim order restraining the ECI from conducting a bye-election in the five constituencies till September 8, 2026. The bench has decided to take up the plea for final hearing on that date and has asked the parties to complete pleadings by then.
Case Title: MK Stalin v Election Commission of India and Others
Case No: WP 34892 of 2026
Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and President of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, MK Stalin, has approached the Madras High Court challenging the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) VS Babu from the Kolathur constituency in the 2026 Legislative Assembly Elections.
Stalin has sought himself to be declared as the winning candidate in the constituency.
Stalin has also sought directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct 100% counting of Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips for the Constituency and to check and verify all 286 machines deployed in the constituency for the assembly elections.
Case Title: R Sivaraj v Aadhav Arjuna and Others
Case No: ELP 49 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 25), warned that it would impose costs on Chief Minister Joseph Vijay and Minister Aadhav Arjuna for seeking adjournment for filing an application to reject the election petitions filed against them.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the court was not bothered about personalities but only wanted to ensure that the election petitions are decided within 6 months.
“I'm not bothered about the personalities. You people say that election cases are not being decided. But then you are asking time. Election petitions are to be disposed of within 6 months,” the court orally remarked.
However, when the counsel assured the court that the rejection applications would be filed in a day's time, the court refrained from imposing cost and adjourned the hearing to August 27.
Case Title: R Sivaraj v Aadhav Arjuna and Others
Case No: ELP 49 of 2026
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay and Minister Aadhav Arjuna have filed applications to reject the election petitions challenging their victory during the 2026 Legislative Assembly Elections.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan was informed that the applications have been filed and the same are yet to be numbered. The court has asked the petitions to be listed on Friday (August 28) and Monday (August 31). The court had, on Tuesday (August 25), warned that it would impose costs on the CM and the Minister if they continued to take adjournments in the pleas.
Case Title: K Balu v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case No: WP 33774 of 2026
The Madras High Court has issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, TASMAC, and the Director General of Police in a public interest litigation challenging the Government's recent proposal to sell alcohol through TASMAC's online portal.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has issued notice returnable by 4 weeks.
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.
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Inigo Irudayaraj
Case No: OA 903 of 2026
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay has informed the Madras High Court that mere claims of “emotionally swaying” the voters is not a ground to challenge the election victory.
The CM has made the submission in his application to reject the Election Petition challenging his election victory from the Tiruchirappalli (East) constituency. Justice V Lakshminarayanan is expected to take up the plea for hearing on August 31st (Monday).
In his counter affidavit, Vijay submitted that the election petitioner's allegation that there was violation of the Election Commission of India's directive and the Model Code of Conduct was without disclosing any statutory cause of action under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act.
Vijay submitted that though the petitioner alleged that there was use of children, he had not demonstrated how the alleged use of children resulted in swaying of votes. He submitted that merely asserting that the votes were emotionally swayed cannot substitute for material facts necessary to show that the election results were affected.
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v MK Stalin and Another
Case No: CS 200 of 2026
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a defamation plea filed by TVK Minister Aadhav Arjuna against former Chief Minister and head of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), MK Stalin, seeking to restrain the latter and the DMK's IT Wing from making false and defamatory statements against him. The Minister has also sought damages of Rs, 1 Crore from Stalin and the party's IT Wing.
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi issued notice returnable by September 15th.
The Minister submitted that on June 8th, 2026, the IT wing of the party had posted on its social media page, linking the Minister to an alleged drug trafficking case. In the post, the party had stated that one individual, who was the mastermind behind a drug trafficking operation involving Rs 258 crores seized in Chennai and Ramanathapuram, was a close relative of the Minister.
The Minister submitted that the above statement was wholly false, fabricated, malicious and devoid of any merits and he was in no way connected to the accused in the drug trafficking case. The Minister argued that the post was made deliberately as part of a targeted campaign of disseminating false allegations to tarnish his image and lower his standing.
Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India
Case No: WP No 27064 of 2026
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay has told the Madras High Court that staying bye-elections to 5 constituencies in the State would deprive lakhs of people from having democratically elected MLAs to represent their interests, causes and grievances for an indefinite period of time.
The Chief Minister made the submissions by way of a counter affidavit in a plea seeking to declare that vacancies in Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies did not constitute “clear vacancies” or available vacancies for the purpose of holding bye-elections under Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in view of pending election petitions.
The CM submitted that there was no public interest involved in the case and the same was filed with ulterior motive. He submitted that the petitioner was only seeking to protect the interest of one individual, the election petitioner, in the event they were declared as the returned candidate. He submitted that stopping the elections, on the other hand, would affect several lakhs of people.