Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 29, 2025 To January 04, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX

Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

REPORT

Special Honours At Temple Cannot Be Claimed As Absolute Right, First Honour Always To Deity: Madras High Court

Case Title: Srirangam Srimath Andavan Ashramam v. Thathadesikar Thiruvamsathar Sabha & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

The Madras High Court recently held that special honours in a temple cannot be claimed as an absolute right and that the first honour in the temple was always to the deity. The court thus dismissed the plea of an ashramam that sought first special honour for its head at the Sri Devaraja Swamy Temple in Kanchipuram.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted though there was an existing practice of honouring the heads, whether it could be claimed as a right or not was an issue that was to be determined by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

Preventive Detention Laws Are Draconian, Can't Be Used To Settle Political Scores Or Silence Dissent: Madras High Court

Case Title: Neelima v. The Additional Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 1

The Madras High Court recently remarked that preventive detention laws were draconian and the state could not use it to settle political scores or silence the dissenting voice.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice P Dhanabal held that the authorities should exercise the detention power sparingly and with extreme caution. The bench added that the courts should take a serious view whenever these powers were not used by the authorities in good faith.

The court also added that whenever it was established that the detention was in a callous manner, with extraneous consideration or for settling political scores, the State should take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer.

Income Tax Act | Long Term Capital Gains Exemption Available Even If Residential House Was Demolished Before Sale: Madras High Court

Case Title: C. Aryama Sundaram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 2

The Madras High Court held that the Long-Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the residential house was demolished before its sale.

The bench stated that since the sale took place later and the assessee reinvested the capital gains in another house within the prescribed time, the exemption is allowable.

Justices Anita Sumanth and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi stated that Sections 54 and 54F are not two sides of the same coin. They are stand-alone provisions requiring satisfaction of the conditions mentioned therein. Any claim for relief by an assessee can be considered and granted by the authorities only if a claim is made indicating compliance with those conditions.

If No Permission Needed To Erect Stone Pillar For Stan Swamy, No Permission Required For Erecting War Memorial Stupa: Madras High Court

Case Title: Siva.Kalaimani Ambalam v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 3

The Madras High Court recently remarked that if no permission was necessary to erect a stone pillar for honouring Stan Swamy in patta land, no such permission was necessary for erecting a war memorial also.

Justice GR Swaminathan thus allowed the construction of a stupa for honouring the Natham Kanawai War.

The judge recalled that in a recent order, the High Court had allowed construction of stone pillar for Stan Swamy with his picture, in a private patta land. The court noted that while many saw swamy as a fighter for tribal rights, it was also true that he was arrested in a UAPA case and died in prison. The court then remarked that if no permission was necessary for that construction, it wasn't necessary for a war memorial also.

Only Sandalwood Festival Permitted At Thiruparankundram Hills, No Animal Sacrifice: Madras High Court

Case Title: M. Manickamoorthy v. The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 4

The Madras High Court has reiterated that animal sacrifice would not be permitted at the Thiruparankundram hills in the Madurai District.

Justice S Srimathy directed the managing trustee of the Hazrat Sulthan Sikkanthar Bhadhusha Dargha to conduct only the Urus festival (sandalwood festival) with 50 persons. The court also restrained the dargah from carrying animal meet, cooking or carrying non-vegetarian food. The court added that the direction must be followed from the base of the hill till its top.

Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'

Case Title: K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 5

The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to halt the release of Sivakarthikeyan starrer “Parasakthi” movie following a plea alleging that the movie's script was stolen.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application filed to restrain the release of the movie or continuing to permit its exhibition in theatres and OTT platforms. The court noted that the main prayer was to not permit director Sudha Kongara and others associate their names with the movie, and so the interim relief travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer.

The court also noted that Rajendran became aware about production of the movie in 2023 but had filed the suit in 2025. Thus, the court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Rajendran and he could still claim damages even if the movie is released.

Noting that the Rajendran had not made out a case for grant of interim, the court dismissed the application.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Madras High Court Asks DGCA If It'll Extend Exemption From Fatigue Management Norm Granted To Indigo

Case Title: Y. R. Rajaveni v. Director General Of Civil Aviation and Another

Case No: WP No. 50417 of 2025

The Madras High Court has asked the Director General of Civil Aviation if it would extend the exemption granted to Interglobe Aviation Limited, operators of Indigo Airlines for complying with the fatigue norms.

Justice V Lakshminarayan asked the DGCA to file a counter in a plea filed by a Chennai resident challenging the exemption arguing that it is illegal, void, and without keeping in mind the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR).

Though the petitioner had asked for a stay of the exemption, the court noted that interim relief could be granted only after hearing the airlines.

The court admitted the plea and recorded the submissions. The court also directed notice to be issued to the respondent airlines.