Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68 NOMINAL INDEX Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58 M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59 Jawahar Rajan v The Regional...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
NOMINAL INDEX
Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
Bhagavathiraj v. State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
REPORT
Case Title: Pradeep Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 57
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a recovery under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is made from the shirt pocket of the accused, it would be seen as a personal search, and compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 50 of the Act would be mandatory during such a search.
Highlighting the importance of following statutory procedure under the Act, Justice Victoria Gowri noted that NDPS prosecutions are not ordinary and the statutory safeguards are not empty formalities but minimum assurance to ensure that the powers were exercised responsibly and legally.
Madras High Court Permits 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Producer To Withdraw Plea Against CBFC
Case Title: M/s KVN Productions v. Central Board of Film Certification and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 58
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (February 10) permitted KVN Productions, producers of Vijay starrer "Jana Nayagan" movie to withdraw their plea challenging the certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification.
Justice PT Asha permitted a request made by Vijayan Subramaniam, advocate for the production company.
The production company had sent a letter to the High Court registry expressing its intention to withdraw the case. The production company had informed the court that it had decided to go ahead with the review process and thus did not wish to continue with the litigation. Following the letter, the case was posted today under the caption "for withdrawal".
Madras High Court Directs Producers Of Kochadaiyaan Movie To Pay ₹2.52 Crore Towards Unpaid Debt
Case Title: M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59
The Madras High Court has directed Mediaone Global Entertainment, the production house engaged in the production of Rajnikanth starrer “Kochadaiyaan” movie, to pay Rs. 2.52 Crore towards unpaid debts.
Though Justice Sunder Mohan observed that neither the production house nor the complainant had proved their case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court highlighted that the purpose of the law was to compensate the complainant. The court also noted that the alleged cheque was issued in 2014 and the court had to adopt a course to secure ends of justice.
Case Title: Jawahar Rajan v The Regional Passport Officer and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 60
A full bench of the Madras High Court has clarified that renewal or reissue of a passport should be considered in the same manner as a fresh issue, and prior permission from the court would be necessary in case of pendency of criminal case.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran, Justice S Srimathy, and Justice KK Ramakrishnan was answering a reference made to it by a single judge in view of conflicting decisions by two division benches.
The court thus concluded that the restrictions contained in the Act apply not only to fresh applications but also for re-issuance and renewal. The court noted that a person facing criminal proceedings is not absolutely disentitled from getting a passport but it was subject to the permission of the criminal court where the case was pending.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Zee Media Corporation Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has asked cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni to pay Rs 10 lakh for translating old CDs involved in a Rs. 100 crore defamation suit filed by him over allegedly defamatory content against him in connection with the 2013 IPL betting scandal.
Justice RN Manjula noted that translating and transcribing the contents of the CD was a humongous task which would take the entire time of an Interpreter and Typist for almost 3 to 4 months. The court fixed the entire cost of the process and asked Dhoni to pay the charges since he was obligated as the plaintiff.
Madras High Court Finds Man Guilty Of Contempt For Accusing Sitting Judges Of 'Genocide'
Case Title: High Court Of Madras v. Ashok Surana
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 62
The Madras High Court has found a man guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous allegations against sitting judges of the High Court, alleging that the judge had committed “genocide” and “crime against humanity”.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, noted that the man had repeatedly made scandalising comments against more than 20 judges of the court and had made intemperate and unwarranted expression against the judiciary.
The court was taking up a suo motu contempt petition initiated against Ashok Surana. The suo motu was registered when Surana made serious comments against one of the judges who was presiding over the bench while hearing a petition filed by him. Surana had commented that the judge had committed genocide and crime against humanity on a scale unknown to mankind.
Case Title: Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd v. The Appellate Authority and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 63
The Madras High Court has criticised the Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society for not taking appropriate action on a sexual harassment complaint made by one of its woman employees.
Rejecting the society's argument that a writ petition would not be maintainable against the credit society, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that protecting women employees from sexual harassment at workplace was a public duty and thus the writ petitions would be maintainable.
In the process, the court also ended a 25 year old legal battle by the woman employee against the management and directed the management to pay retirement benefits to the employee along with 60% of the back wages.
Interest Of Child Paramount, Not Of Perpetrator: Madras High Court Affirms Joint Trial In POCSO Case
Case Title: Bhagavathiraj v. State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 64
The Madras High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act noting that there was no failure of justice merely because there was a joint trial.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima observed that when courts were dealing with matters of child abuse, they must apply the laws in the best interest of the child and not the interest of the perpetrators of the crime. In the present case, the court noted that the Special Court had rightly conducted joint trial against two accused who had committed the offence of sexual assault on a minor child, though separately.
Places Of Worship Act Does Not Protect Encroachment By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
Case Title: N.Kumar v. District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 65
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Managing Trustee of Sri Arulmighu Raajakaliamman Temple in Ramanathapuram District of Tamil Nadu, claiming protection for the temple which was allegedly built on an encroached land.
Rejecting the claim that the ancient temple was protected under the Places of Worship Act, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the Act was only meant to protect the religious character of temples and not to protect a structure that was put up on Government land by encroaching.
Madras High Court Upholds Conviction Of Pastor For Sexually Assaulting Disabled Minor
Case Title: Joseph Raja v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 66
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a pastor for sexually assaulting a minor who had physical and intellectual disability.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima held that the circumstances, the testimony of victim, and failure of the accused to rebut the statutory presumption established his guilt.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a pastor challenging his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the Special court.
Case Title: N Ganesh Agarwal v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 67
A Madras High Court judge recently recused from hearing a case after All India Lawyers Association for Justice (AILAJ) alleged that a senior advocate had taken a sum of Rs 50 Lakh from the client in the name of bribing the judge for passing suitable orders.
Justice Nirmal Kumar recused from hearing the case and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for posting before an appropriate bench and for issuing appropriate orders to the Vigilance Cell so that an enquiry could be conducted and appropriate action could be taken.
Previous Service As Village Assistant Can't be Excluded For Pension : Madras HC
Case Name : The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department & Ors. v. K. Marimuthu & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 68
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan held that the service rendered as a full-time Village Assistant after 01.06.1995 cannot be treated as non-provincialised service. It must be fully counted along with Village Administrative Officer service for pensionary benefits.
It was noted by the court that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 do not contain any definition for the expression “non-provincialised service”. It was observed by the Court that after the Village Assistants were appointed as per Government Order, they were treated as full-time employees. Therefore their service could not be termed as non-provincialised service.
It was held by the Court that the service rendered as Village Assistant does not constitute “non-provincialised service.” Therefore the respondents are entitled to have their entire service counted for pensionary benefits.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The State of Tamil Nadu has argued that the claims made by Youtuber Journalist Savukku Shankar of requiring continuous specialised medical treatment is only a ruse to escape the clutches of law.
Following the directions of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman, the State had filed its objection to the Medical Board's report regarding Shankar's health status.
It may be noted that while refusing to cancel the interim bail granted Shankar, the bench had directed the dean of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to assess Shankar's medical condition. The bench had also directed Shankar to appear before the Board on a particular date and asked the Board to submit its report in a sealed cover.
Case Title: Vedanta Limited v. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and others
Case No: WP 4866 of 2026
Vedanta Limited has approached the Madras High Court challenging an order of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) refusing to permit its “Green Copper” manufacturing unit at the Sterlite Copper unit in Thoothukudi.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan has directed the state government to respond to the plea. The court has also asked the State to express its stand regarding another prayer sought by Vedanta to set up a court-monitored multi-disciplinary expert committee, along with independent experts in relevant fields to scientifically, independently, and comprehensively examine Vedanta's proposal for the Green Copper plant.