Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 NOMINAL INDEX Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314 Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315 Suji @ Kasi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316 The Secretary To...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
NOMINAL INDEX
Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
Suji @ Kasi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
Dr Ponraj v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
M v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
Krishnamoorthy v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
REPORT
Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313
The Madras High Court recently observed that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made the observation after noting the excess waste that was being dumped in the Tamirabarani river by devotees who came there to perform rituals for the departed. The court directed the authorities to ensure that the river does not get polluted through the rituals. However, noting that the issue involved the religious sentiments of Hindus, the court was not inclined to pass any orders without hearing the stakeholders.
The court also added that though believers had the right to do something which was spiritually beneficial to them, such right should not violate the rights of others in society. The court highlighted that the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health.
Case Title: P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314
The Madras High Court recently permitted members of the Adi Dravidar community, a scheduled caste community, to perform the Ninth Day Mandakapadi (temple pooja) during the Chithirai festival in Arulmighu Sri Moongil Ayyanar Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314]
Justice L Victoria Gowri held that the Constitution does not recognise any hierarchy among the devotees based on birth. The court added that though courts usually exercise restraint in matters concerning religious practices, such restraint could not be used to perpetuate practices which offend the constitutional guarantees such as equality, dignity and fraternity.
Case Title: Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the appointment of 54 Junior Assistants in the Coimbatore Corporation after noting that the entire selection process was flawed and tainted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar held that recruitment to public services should inspire public confidence.
The court noted that there was no selection committee constituted but only a verification committee headed by an Assistant Commissioner to verify the documents of the candidates, which was unknown to the service rules. Thus, the court noted that there was no valid selection committee as per the Service Rules or any procedure to assess the candidates were followed to assess the suitability and eligibility of the candidates.
The court emphasised that equal opportunity in public employment was a constitutional mandate. The court added that the tainted selection process was a ground to vitiate the entire selection process. The court also remarked that illegality in selection was not just a ground to vitiate the selection but also had larger repercussions in society.
Case Title: Suji @ Kasi v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316
While dismissing the appeal of a man against his conviction in a case of sexual assault by intimidation using intimate images, the Madras High Court appealed to young women not to share their intimate photos or videos online, no matter how deep the affection may appear. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316]
Considering the public importance involved in the issue, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan issued the advisory in English, Hindi and Tamil languages and also expressed regret in not being able to translate the portion in all regional languages. The court added that once the intimate materials are shared online, there was a possibility that the same could be misused, leading to irreversible consequences.
Case Title: The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317
The Madras High Court recently directed the State to clear the travel expenses of a lawyer who was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that when an independent advocate was appointed to a highly sensitive prosecution, he was performing a vital public duty. The court added that the State could not expect the advocate to pay for the fuel when he had to travel hundreds of kilometres for the case, as that would itself swallow his professional fee.
Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318
The Madras High Court has closed a plea seeking a probe into alleged donations sought 'fraudulently' through the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) NaMo app and website. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318]
The petitioner had also sought a direction to the CBI or the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to register an FIR and initiate legal action against the party, former National President JP Nadda, the Chief Complaints Officer of the Namo App, Amit Malviya, and all others allegedly involved in the NaMo app special micro donation online scandal.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan closed the plea after Special Public Prosecutor for CBI informed the court of having closed the complaint made by the petitioner since it did not fall under the purview of CBI. Thus, the court was inclined to close the present petition also.
Case Title: B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319
The Madras High Court recently held that a trial court's refusal to entertain an application filed by the accused under Section 217 CrPC seeking to recall the witnesses after alteration of charge, would strike at the very root of procedural fairness. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319]
Justice Victoria Gowri held that though the provision gives liberty to the court to refuse to recall a witness if the same is sought to delay the process, such discretion should be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The court held that it was required to first receive the petition, number it, and then adjudicate it on its merits.
Case Title: Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320
The Madras High Court recently held that residents of one village cannot claim a right of burial in another village unless the same has the character of a customary right. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan thus refused relief for a group of villagers who had sought burial rights in a crematorium in another village. The court said that the villagers had not established a right under Article 25 of the Constitution and had only canvassed the plea based on convenience. The court noted that the balance of convenience could not be used to establish an enforceable right.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321
The Madras High Court recently held that an employee, facing departmental proceedings for charges of corruption, could not claim promotion as a matter of right merely because his name was included in the panel for promotion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321].
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules 2016 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stipulate that only an officer with clean records should be promoted to a higher post. The court thus held that if any tainted officer is promoted only on the ground that his name was included in the panel despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same would be against the object of the law.
Madras High Court Upholds FIR Against Commentator V Ponraj Over Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters
Case Title: Dr Ponraj v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), dismissed a plea filed by political commentator V Ponraj seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for making 'derogatory' comments against women supporters of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. The court had reserved orders on July 13. The court observed that Ponraj, being a person of considerable standing in society, should have exercised restraint while making such public comments. The court added that a person of such scientific eminence bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and such standing should not be taken as a defence to quash the FIR.
Case Title: M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), closed a plea filed by a lawyer and Joint Secretary of the District Advocates Wing (Villupuram District) of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party alleging corruption in the appointment of Government Advocates in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323]
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the appointments presently made were temporary, for a period of 6 months, and that the state was processing the applications received by candidates to be appointed as Law Officers in the subordinate courts.
Case Title: M v B
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324
The Madras High Court recently held that materials, including WhatsApp chats and screenshots, which allegedly show a parent's drug use, procurement of narcotic substances, and association with persons involved in such activity would directly have a bearing on assessing the parent's fitness while dealing with a guardianship application, and the same could not be excluded merely on the ground of such parent's privacy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324]
Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the welfare of the child was paramount and a matter of public concern, and thus such materials should not be excluded merely because they originated in a private communication.
Case Title: J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking CBI probe into complaints of poaching of MLAs in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325]
The petition was filed by an advocate from Tiruppur, in light of the recent allegations made by a TVK MLA that he was offered Rs. 35 Crore at the behest of another political party, to vote against the Speaker in a proposed no-confidence motion.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that transferring the investigation to the CBI was an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court held that the investigation could be transferred only when the local investigation was paralyzed or compromised. In the present case, the court noted that there was nothing to show that the local police were acting in bad faith.
Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike
Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against an agriculturist for holding a hunger strike against the continuous lodging of criminal cases against their Farmers' Association leader. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326]
Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that there was no material to show that the persons had caused any inconvenience to the general public. The court also highlighted that raising slogans and showing protest will not be an offence, as showing protest itself is a hallmark of democracy, protected under the Constitution.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Dr VBP Paramasivam v The Union of India and Others
Case No: WP (MD) 19005 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu Government, on Monday (July 13), informed the Madras High Court that the School Education Department has issued a circular to prevent any non-academic activities in educational premises.
Advocate General Vijay Narayan made the submissions before the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, which was hearing a plea filed by former AIADMK MLA VBP Paramasivam seeking direction to the Union of India, the Higher Education Department, the School Education Department, the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Director of School Education to take immediate action against the use of educational institutions for political exploitation.
The matter relates to the alleged celebrations carried out by the members of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) in connection with the birthday of party head and Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, on June 22.
Case Title: MRK Panneerselvam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Case No: Crl RC 1427 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 13), sought the response of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in a plea filed by former Minister MRK Panneerselvam seeking discharge in a corruption case.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed the DVAC to file its counter in the plea by July 30. Till then, the court also dispensed with Panneerselvam and his family's appearance before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.