Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 NOMINAL INDEX Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38 Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
NOMINAL INDEX
Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
REPORT
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37
The Madras High Court recently stressed on the need to protect the rights of women who are caught up in the "modern web" of live-in relationships.
Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection.
The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage.
Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38
The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana Dharma
Justice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.
The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it.
Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39
The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities.
The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation.
Case Title: Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40
The Madras High Court recently criticised the State for collecting sensitive data of students who had stigmatic background.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan set aside an order passed by the Member Secretary of the Model School, calling for certain information of students. The court noted that the information was sensitive and there was no explanation on how this data was going to be used or stored. Calling it a violation of the privacy of students, the court noted that it would be a clear discrimination and ill-treatment of students studying in the Model schools.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41
The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case. The court, however, imposed additional conditions on his bail.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case.
The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose of availing medical facilities or in connection with seeking legal assistance in the case. The court made it clear that any violation of the conditions shall be viewed seriously, and strict action would be taken against Shankar.
The court has also directed the Dean of the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital to constitute a Medical Board consisting of experts to analyse and assess Shankar's medical condition. Shankar has been asked to appear before the board on 2nd February, which will examine him and submit a report, in a sealed cover, to the court on 3rd February 2026.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court, on Monday, orally remarked that it is not concerned with the apprehensions of bias in minds of individuals and that it is only concerned about the system, as courts can't run as per individual's apprehensions.
The oral comments were made by a division bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman while hearing an application filed by the State police seeking to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber-journalist A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar.
When the case was taken up today, the counsel representing Shankar's mother, Kamala, the original petitioner, informed the court that the party was filing an application regarding apprehension of bias.
To this, the bench commented that if the party had any apprehension, it could proceed on the administrative side and get orders from the Chief Justice. The bench made it clear that it would not await the decision in any such application of apprehension as it was only concerned with dealing with the case that was listed before it.
Case Title: Central Board of Film Certification and another v. KVN Productions LLP
Case No: C.M.P.No.821 of 2026 in W.A.No.94 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (January 20) reserved its verdict in the appeal preferred by the Central Board of Film Certification against a single bench order directing it to grant UA certificate to actor-politican Vijay's Tamil film 'Jana Nayagan'.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved orders after a 3-hour long hearing today. The bench had previously stayed the single judge order.
During the hearing today, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, appearing for CBFC, made two-fold arguments. One, the Board was not given time to file a counter affidavit and two, the communication dated January 06 for review of the film certification by the Revising Committee was not challenged by the producers.
Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, appearing for the Producer, on the other hand, argued that the CBFC Regional Office had, after unanimous recommendation of the examining committee, communicated the decision to grant UA certificate to the film, and the same could not have been referred for review to the Revising Committee.
Madras High Court Appoints Retired Judge To Supervise Allotment Of Shops At Marina Beach
Case Title: S Devi v. The Principal Secretary to the Government
Case No: W.P.No.36085 of 2025
The Madras High Court has appointed retired high court judge to supervise the allotment of shops at the Marina beach in an attempt to reduce the number of hawkers at the beach.
The bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira appointed Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar, former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court to act as the monitoring authority for conducting the lot. The court has also appointed Retired Principal District Judge & former judicial member of NCLT T Mohan Raj, and Retd Deputy Registrar of High Court R Ranganathan to assist the monitoring authority.
Case Title: G Anbazhagan v. S Jeyachandran and Others
Case NO: REV.APLC.No.116 of 2023
The Madras High Court has called for an explanation from the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, and Assistant Commissioner of Police as to why no action had been taken against persons who misbehaved with a court appointed administrator at the Pachaiyappa Trust.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K Kumaresh Babu lamented that even after the matter was brought to the attention of the jurisdictional police, no action had been taken so far. This inaction on the part of police, according to the bench, was a direct attack on the judiciary as the administrator was appointed by the court and acting on its behalf.
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others
Case No: WP No. 21006 of 2022
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on a plea filed by Actor Vijay challenging the Rs. 1.5 crore penalty imposed on him by the Income Tax Department for undisclosed income of Rs 15 crore in the financial year 2015-16.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy reserved orders on Friday. Another bench of the court had previously stayed the proceedings in 2022.
It all goes back to income tax searches carried out at Vijay's residence in September 2015. Following the search, the department alleged that undisclosed income had come to light.