Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372 NOMINAL INDEX G. V. Markandayan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 Udhayanidhi Stalin (MLA) v The State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363 Sethuraj v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364 The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 GV Markandayan v The...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
NOMINAL INDEX
G. V. Markandayan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
Udhayanidhi Stalin (MLA) v The State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
Sethuraj v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
GV Markandayan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
Ganga Neduncheliyan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
V Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
J Abdul Malik and Another v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
R Kanagavel Pandian v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
Ajith Kumar and Others v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
G Devarajan v The Principal Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
REPORT
Case Title: G.V.Markandayan v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362
The Madras High Court has granted bail to Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan in a case registered against him for allegedly making derogatory and threatening remarks against CM Joseph Vijay.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan was inclined to grant bail on the condition that Markandayan files an affidavit undertaking that he will not make such remarks against the CM in the future. Markandayan has also been directed to appear before the investigating officer twice daily for a period of two weeks, except on days when the State Legislative Assembly is in session
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin (MLA) v The State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 4), asked the Tamil Nadu police to release the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, who has been arrested by the Thanjavur police in connection with a case for allegedly making derogatory statements against women.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan recorded the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan that though Udhayanidhi has been arrested and was being taken to Thanjavur, the State did not intend to remand him. The AG submitted that the State only intended to question Udhayanidhi and release him on station bail after the same.
The court recorded the submission and asked the police to release Udhayanidhi today itself, after interrogation, on station bail. The court also directed Udhayanidhi to cooperate with the investigation as and when necessary.
Madras High Court Stays TVK MLA Poaching Bid Case Probe, Seeks Response On Plea Seeking CBI Probe
Case Title: Sethuraj v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364
The Madras High Court has stayed the investigation into alleged attempt to poach an MLA belonging to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered the interim stay on a plea seeking to transfer the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court has ordered an interim stay till the next date of hearing.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Sethuraj, an accused in the case, challenging the validity of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI to ensure a fair, independent and credible investigation.
Case Title: The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to transfer trial in the disproportionate asset case against former Minister and sitting MLA Anitha Radhakrishnan, to the Special Court for PMLA cases in Madurai. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365]
ED had sought transfer of the case from Thoothukudi Sessions Court to the Special Court in Madurai, where it has filed a money laundering complaint based on the predicate offence.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the trial in the predicate offence, which was pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, had almost reached the final stage, and transferring the trial at such a stage would serve no legitimate purpose.
Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (August 5) dismissed a plea filed by Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan challenging his remand in a case registered over his alleged derogatory and threatening remarks against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. With respect to a consequential prayer sought by the MLA seeking bail, the court noted that it had already granted bail to the MLA.
Case Title: Ganga Neduncheliyan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
The Madras High Court has reiterated that usage of cone speakers would be banned/restricted in public and religious places in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has asked the State government to ensure compliance with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules and to issue necessary guidelines to the concerned authorities and police officers to ensure compliance.
The court also asked the State to instruct authorities to take action against users of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places and ensure that the usage of speakers is within the permitted parameters. The court added that appropriate action can be taken against violators according to the Rules and the loudspeakers and other instruments involved could be seized and confiscated immediately.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368
The Madras High Court has relaxed the bail conditions imposed on Coimbatore South MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar in connection with a case lodged over allegations of offering a ₹35 crore bribe to a TVK MLA in an alleged attempt to influence his vote for Assembly Speaker. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368]
It may be noted that the court had granted anticipatory bail to Balaji and his brother on July 8, and had directed the duo to appear before the Inspector of Police, Triplicane Police Station daily at 10:30 am and 5:30 pm and asked them to cooperate with the investigation.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has now relaxed this bail condition after noting that a division bench of the High Court has stayed the investigation into the case. The court, however, made it clear that the duo can be summoned for investigation as and when necessary.
Case Title: J Abdul Malik and Another v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369
The Madras High Court recently observed that government officials who give false information to the counsels representing the government would be interfering with the administration of justice and would be liable for contempt of court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a communication to the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk in Tiruchirappalli District, calling for an explanation for giving false information to the Government counsel, in connection with a case involving encroachment in a waterbody. Based on the report, the court will decide on taking up a suo motu case.
Case Title: R Kanagavel Pandian v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 370
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the media's obligation to maintain intellectual honesty and social responsibility in its broadcasts. The court added that in the quest for ratings, entertainment channels cannot distort national history or humiliate those whose sufferings gave the citizens constitutional liberty. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 370]
Justice L Victoria Gowri held that a broadcaster has control over the content that is being disseminated. The court added that the broadcaster selects, schedules and approves the content before it is published and derives commercial benefit from its viewership. The court thus held that a broadcaster had a responsibility to review the content before publishing and cannot wriggle out of responsibility by saying that the program was created by an independent producer.
Advocates Cannot Prevent Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers In Court: Madras High Court
Case Title: Ajith Kumar and Others v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371
The Madras High Court recently held that though advocates can raise objections with respect to police excess in the arrest of other lawyers, they cannot prevent the police from producing such accused lawyers in the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by 10 lawyers to quash the criminal case registered against them for preventing the police from producing two advocates, accused in an NDPS case, before the court.
The court noted that if the advocates wanted to show solidarity against police excess, they could protest in a democratic and peaceful manner. However, when the advocates prevented the police from producing the accused in the court, the same would be an offence under Section 225 of the IPC.
Case Title: G Devarajan v The Principal Secretary and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372
The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 7), observed that consumers can directly register police complaints if employees of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) overcharge them while purchasing liquor bottles.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has directed the state police to take swift action based on such consumer complaints. The court has also asked the Home Department to ensure that extra police personnel are deployed at crowded TASMAC outlets to manage the crowd.
The court passed the orders on a plea seeking registration of an FIR against employees of certain TASMAC shops, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, to recover excess amount collected by the employees. The petitioner had also sought disciplinary action against the employees, including dismissal from service for their involvement in such malpractice.
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 has sought the State's response on a plea filed by the Dravidar Kazhagam party seeking permission to conduct a bike rally against NEET and EWS in the State of Tamil Nadu.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, the court directed the State to file its counter affidavit and adjourned the case to August 11.
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: Dr. Senthilkumar v Anu George IAS and Others
Case No: CONT P No. 2714 of 2026 AND SUB APPL NO. 836 OF 2026
The Madras High Court has issued contempt notice to two IAS officers – SP Amrith IAS (former Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services) and Mr Krishna Unni IAS (current Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services) for not complying with an earlier court order regarding the appointment of a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon.
Justice GR Swaminathan in his order noted that though contempt proceedings were a rarity in earlier days, there was an increase in the number of contempt proceedings in recent days. The court added that officials were not scared about facing contempt anymore.
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026
Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Friday (August 7) opposed former Minister KN Nehru's plea seeking review of the Madras High Court order directing registration of a corruption FIR against him, allegedly in violation of natural justice.
The probe agency argued that there is no requirement in law to hear a proposed accused before a court orders registration of an FIR.
The submissions were made by Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.