Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340 NOMINAL INDEX Mugilan v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
NOMINAL INDEX
Mugilan v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
P. v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
R. Pradeep Kumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
REPORT
Case Title: Mugilan v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a youth who had recklessly replied to a police officer who was on rounds during night patrol. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the allegations against him were not made out and that continuing the trial would be a futile exercise. The court also took note of the unconditional apology tendered by him and observed that the prosecution need not be continued.
Case Title: The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328
The Madras High Court recently emphasised that police officers, medical practitioners, or any professional appearing before the court to depose as a witness should come in prescribed uniform and maintain integrity, discipline and devotion to duty. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar added that the judicial officer should strictly ensure that the professionals maintain discipline inside the court halls. The bench added that if the officers were found to engage in indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behaviour, the judicial officer should file a complaint before the competent authority for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings.
The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all police personnel across the State, directing the police officers attending the courts to wear proper uniform and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failing which disciplinary action would be taken.
Case Title: Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329
The Madras High Court recently observed that a child victim in POCSO cases cannot be called to the court repeatedly and made to relive the trauma. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that society does not often understand the mental trauma that a child experiences when subjected to sexual harassment. The court added that though the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act provides stringent punishment for sexual assault of children, the implementation of the Act itself should not become a source of trauma for the child.
The court observed that the purpose of the POCSO Act was to protect the children. However, the child still had to undergo the ordeal of reliving the trauma while disclosing the incident to the parents or close relative, while being interviewed by the Child Welfare Committee member, while interacting with the Physicians and experts on medical examination, while recording a statement, while being taken to the Magistrate to record a statement under Section 164, and while being examined before the court. The court noted that these instances themselves would cause trauma to the child.
Case Title: Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently observed that a Magistrate is not expected to merely act as a post office and accept a closure report filed by the police stating that a case was undetected or there was a mistake of fact.
The court emphasised that the Magistrate was expected to ensure that the police investigated all the relevant aspects before filing the “undetected” closure report. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the Magistrate cannot dismiss a protest petition mechanically and, while considering the protest petition, was required to examine whether the closure report had dealt with material aspects.
Case Title: Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently held that disputes relating to repayment of pending professional fees are not public in nature and assume the character of private civil disputes. The court thus held that an advocate cannot file writ petitions for recovering such pending professional fee from client. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that a writ was an extraordinary remedy which was designed to correct constitutional overreaches, failure of public duty, and arbitrary use of state power. The court added that it could interfere in contract matters only when there was glaring arbitrariness and an absolute admission of liability.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 22) dismissed petitions filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother alleging police harassment in connection with pending investigations against them. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332]
While dismissing the plea, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan orally remarked that the relief sought for in the plea was premature and that the police could not be prevented from investigating if there was material.
Balaji had approached the court seeking direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of search, enquiry or investigation, and if his presence was required in any pending or proposed case, to issue proper written notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as mandated in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.
DMK's Periakaruppan Withdraws Plea In Madras High Court Challenging TVK MLA's Victory By One Vote
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court has dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Periakaruppan, DMK's candidate in Tirupattur Constituency, against the victory of TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court had permitted Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea pending before the High Court after he filed an election petition challenging Sethupathi's victory. Taking note of this, the court allowed Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea and closed it.
Case Title: R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court recently refused to regularise the appointment of temporary stenotypists, typists, and junior assistants in the District Judiciary across the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar emphasised that the temporary appointment could not be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. The court remarked that the judicial department is expected to initiate steps to ensure that the sanctioned posts are made available and are filled up by conducting a recruitment process on a regular basis.
The court made it clear that all appointments made to public posts should be strictly as per the constitutional scheme. The court also remarked that irregular, illegal and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable service rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who aspire to secure public employment. The court also remarked that allowing such back-door appointment to continue constitutional sin.
Case Title: PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an illegal mining case registered against a group of quarry operators, accused of causing a loss of Rs 7,237 crore to the State exchequer. The court added that the trial in the case was pending for almost 14 years due to delay facilitated through the "unholy nexus" between former public officials, politicians and the quarry operators. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan also took note of the new government in the State and the usual practice of appointing Special Public Prosecutors for special cases after the formation of the new government. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to the Government to constitute a special public prosecution team to effectively conduct the prosecution and ensure that every endeavour is made to conclude the trial within 3 months.
Case Title: U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336
The Madras High Court recently upheld the detention order passed by Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), expelling two students accused of kidnapping another student of the College and demanding a ransom of Rs. 2 Lakh. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the institute's code of conduct prohibited students from engaging in any form of misconduct, including off-campus activities that could affect the university's interests and reputation, and also permitted the university to expel students permanently.
The court also noted that after the crime of kidnapping was registered against the students, it was the duty of the college to take action and ensure a free and conducive environment for students to undergo the course. The court added that the other students could not attend college in a state of limbo and fear.
Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337
The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337]
Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing.
The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed.
Madras High Court Directs Two Police Officers To Pay ₹1 Lakh Each For Failing To Register Dowry FIR
Case: P. v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed two police personnel— an Inspector and a Sub Inspector, of an All Women Police Station to pay Rs. 1,00,000 each as compensation to the father of woman, for closing a dowry complaint without registering an FIR despite disclosure of cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338]
“The lapse committed by respondents 2 and 3 [police officials] cannot be ignored, since their failure to register a case despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences resulted in avoidable hardship and prejudice to the petitioner,” Justice L Victoria Gowri said in her order.
Both officials had already been placed under suspension.
Taking note of the remorse expressed by the respondents and the suspension already undergone by them, the court however directed that no further departmental proceedings be initiated against the respondents, observing that the court was “satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met by the disciplinary action already undergone by them coupled with the payment of compensation directed herein.”
Case Title: R. Pradeep Kumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of watching the illegally released copy of Chief Minister Vijay's “Jana Nayagan” movie online, before its release on Friday. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339]
Justice C Kumarappan noted that the only allegation against the man was that he had watched the movie illegally and no overt act had been attributed against him. The court also noted that the final report had already been filed in the case and other co-accused had already been granted bail, though the same had been challenged. The court was thus inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340
The Madras High Court recently observed that an election petition challenging the victory of a candidate can be filed only by an elector who belonged to the same constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340]
Justice Anand Venkatesh thus dismissed an election petition filed by a voter against the victory of DMK's Sethil Balaji from Coimbatore South constituency. The court noted that the petition was more in the nature of a public interest litigation as the petitioner was not a voter in the constituency from which Balaji contested in the elections. Noting that an election petition cannot substitute for PIL, the court dismissed the plea.
The court noted that if the word “elector” was given a broader meaning, any elector of any constituency could question the election of a candidate from another constituency . The court also added that such a broader meaning would open a Pandora's box as election petitions would galore after every assembly election.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Madras High Court Expresses Displeasure On Lack Of Steps To Curb Stray Dog Menace
Case Title: Suo Moto Writ Petition on City Hounded on Strays v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 23656 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 21), expressed displeasure on no concrete steps being taken by the State of Tamil Nadu to address the issue of the stray dog menace.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was hearing a suo motu case taken up by it, following the Supreme Court order for controlling stray dogs.
Following the SC direction, the Madras High Court had registered a suo motu case. The court had previously directed the Tamil Nadu government and the Puducherry government to submit a detailed report on the steps taken by them to implement the order of the Supreme Court. The bench had orally remarked that priority should be given to educational institutions and hospitals.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on Tuesday, Additional Advocate General PV Balasubramniam informed the court that a status report was being prepared and requested a week's time to file the same.
Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State
Case No: Crl OP (MD) 15390 of 2026
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MLA from Vilathikulam assembly constituency, GV Markadayan, has approached the Madras High Court seeking bail in a case for allegedly making derogatory and threatening remarks against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay.
When the matter came up before Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan on Thursday (July 23), Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for the MLA, argued that due process was not followed while arresting the MLA. Since the state Public Prosecutor John Sathyan sought time to file a counter in the plea, the court adjourned the hearing to July 27.
The DMK MLA had approached the court challenging his remand by the Thoothukudi Judicial Magistrate in connection with a case for allegedly making threatening remarks against the Chief Minister.