Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 NOMINAL INDEX U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341 S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342 Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343 EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344 B Jagadeeshwaran v The State,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
NOMINAL INDEX
U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
B Jagadeeshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
XXX v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
U v M, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
J. Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
Mandai @ Manogaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
REPORT
Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341
The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 27), ordered the Director General of Police to provide protection to retired IAS officer U Sagayam, facing life threats since he probed alleged mining irregularities across the State of Tamil Nadu
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that Sagayam's evidence was crucial for the trial of illegal mining cases and that he was facing life threats while going to courts for deposing as a witness. The court thus directed the DGP to provide police protection to Sagayam, whenever he is going to Court, with at least one gunman.
Meanwhile, State has been asked to review his application for restoring police protection expeditiously.
Case Title: S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342
The Madras High Court recently held that merely uttering the word “Hindu Terrorism” will not attract the offence of provocation when the same was not followed by any act on the part of the person commenting. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus quashed a criminal case registered against a man for allegedly making provocative speech during a public meeting.
The court noted that the speech was made in 2017 and no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial and continuing the investigation. The court noted that the man had only used the inappropriate word of “Hindu Terrorism” and there was no intention to divide people on communal lines.
Madras High Court Quashes Compassionate Appointment Given To Families Of Karur Stampede Tragedy
Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343
The Madras High Court, Madurai bench on Monday (July 27) struck down a Government Order passed by the Tamil Nadu government giving compassionate appointment to the families of those who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343]
A division bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, noted that the appointment was violative of Article 14 ad 16. The bench said that there were many who were waiting to get compassionate appointment in every government department and it was not appropriate to overlook their needs and provide employment to the families in the present case.
The court also noted that though the State had claimed to have passed the orders in exercise of its administrative powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, such powers had to be exercised within the rigours of the Constitution.
Case Title: EV Velu v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 28), cancelled the look-out circular issued against former Minister EV Velu in connection with a case registered against him by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the laying of roads while he was acting as Minister for Public Works. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan cancelled the circular after noting that Velu had come back to India and was cooperating with the investigation. The court was thus inclined to cancel the circular on the condition that Velu gives prior intimation to the jurisdictional magistrate if he intends to travel abroad. It may be noted that the court had previously stayed the operation of the circular.
Case Title: B Jagadeeshwaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345
Noting the alarming increase in the number of advocates facing criminal cases, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a detailed survey and frame appropriate rules and policies regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the direction after noting the large number of cases flooding the courts, involving practicing advocates. The court added that the issue has reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision was required.
The court said that a survey by the Bar Council into number of advocates facing charges would in turn assist in taking an informed policy decision and framing appropriate rules regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations.
Case title: Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346
The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against lawyers who staged a protest demanding that the Trichy-Chennai highway be made toll-free for advocates, holding that the demonstration was an exercise of their democratic right to protest and did not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346]
The Court, however, stated that a road cannot be made toll-free for advocates specially.
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed:
“The entire episode is nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, though for a bizarre reason. Merely because the petitioners are members of the Bar, they cannot be placed on a separate pedestal. When a toll is legally collected from the public, it must be paid by the members of the Bar as well".
Case Title: Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that Pudukottai Bar Association cannot be made solely liable to pay entire electricity dues arising from a common service connection which was also being used by several other government law offices. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347]
In doing so the court granted relief to Pudukottai Bar Association challenging a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs 5,38,924 towards electricity consumption charges for the period between November 2013 and May 2018. During the pendency of the petition, the outstanding amount had increased to Rs 22,40,665.
The Court directed the Electricity Board to install separate meters for each occupant.
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 29), permitted the withdrawal of the plea seeking an inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of assets by former Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party President MK Stalin, in his election affidavit filed during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348]
The petitioner requested the court to allow withdrawal of the plea after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination in issuing directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct an enquiry based on the representation made by the petitioner. The bench had orally remarked that the petitioner had not produced any materials to prima facie show that the assets were not declared as per law.
Case Title: Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349
The Madras High Court recently held that any information received by the police with respect to a crime would not automatically amount to a first information statement or a first information report unless such information meets the statutory requirements of Section 154 of CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that in the present era of instant and electronic communication, any information regarding a crime could reach the police through various channels including cryptic telephone calls, wireless messages, information from eyewitnesses, etc. The court noted that such information is mostly intended to prevent further untoward incidents.
The court observed that the burden was on the accused to prove that the prior information received by the police in connection with the crime was material information in accordance with Section 154 of CrPC and that this information was suppressed by the prosecution.
Madras High Court Issues Directions To State, Judiciary For Speedy Trial Of Rape & POCSO Cases
Case Title: XXX v The Director General of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350
The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government and the State judiciary for speeding up the investigation and trial of cases of crimes against women and children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan stressed the need to follow the time limit prescribed for completing trial and witness examination under Section 346 of BNSS and Section 35 of the POCSO Act.
The court has directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all District and Sessions Judges in the State reiterating the obligation to comply with Section 346(1) of the BNSS and the mandate of recording reasons while granting adjournment as contemplated under Section 346(2) of the BNSS.
The court also directed the Registrar General to reissue an earlier circular, reminding the Presiding Officers of the Special POCSO court about their obligation to record evidence of victim child within 30 days and to conclude the trial within a year as far as possible.
Case Title: U v M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351
The Madras High Court has recently held that a husband seeking divorce on the ground that the wife had a hip injury and was incapable of leading a matrimonial life would be inconsistent with humane values of the matrimonial relationship. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that a physical disability or an accidental injury does not render a person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life. The court added that humanity demands a spouse to extend compassion, support, and adjustment to a partner who has suffered a physical disability, without treating such disability with contempt.
The bench also remarked that if accidental injuries sustained by a partner are taken as a ground for dissolution of marriage, the institution of marriage and the principles of matrimonial jurisprudence would be undermined.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352
The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 30) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister and present MLA of the Coimbatore South constituency, Senthil Balaji in connection with a case registered against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the functioning of TASMAC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the anticipatory bail plea after considering the large-scale corruption involved in the case. The court opined that custodial interrogation was very much necessary in the case and thus dismissed the plea.
The court also took note of the allegation that the accused had abused their official positions and entered into conspiracy, causing large-scale loss to the state exchequer.
Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
The Madras High Court has granted personhood to the Tamirabarani river, making it clear that no person will have a right to pollute the river, even in the name of religion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made it clear that personhood was being granted not because the waterbody was a river, but because the river was treated as a deity by persons of the Hindu religion. The court thus observed that any pollution in the river would not just be against the environmental laws but also against the river's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, the court has permitted immersion of ashes in the river, considering the sentimental and emotional attachment that Indians have to the waters of rivers and oceans and the importance of performing the rituals. The permission was granted on the condition that the ashes are carried in an unfired earthen pot, which could dissolve in the river immediately. The court made it clear that ashes cannot be thrown along with pots.
Case: Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354
The Madras High Court has directed authorities to ensure that members of the Scheduled Caste community in Salem's Deviyakurichi village are allowed to participate in the annual 'Ther' festival of the Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple with adequate police protection. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354]
For context, Ther Festival is a Hindu temple chariot festival where large, decorated wooden cars carrying deity idols are pulled through streets by devotees.
Case Title: Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld an order directing a daughter and her husband to shift from the ground floor of their house to the second floor, enabling the elderly parents to occupy the ground floor on account of their advanced age. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355]
Justice M. Dhandapani held that the order by the appellate authority did not evict the petitioners, but merely regulated the mode of occupation in the house to safeguard the welfare and convenience of the senior citizens.
The Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the appellate authority's order violated an interim injunction granted by a civil court restraining the parents from evicting the petitioners from the property.
Case Title: J.Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to stop amusement rides and activities during the Aadi Thabasu festival in Tenkasi, holding that petitions of this nature, when organisers have already obtained all necessary permissions, could harm communal harmony. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356]
Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed,
“Aadi Thabasu is a very important traditional festival which is being conducted from time to time by the people of Tamil Nadu with great bhakti and devotion. Writ petition like this, would harm the communal harmony and religious harmony of the locality and this Court negates all the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the proper instructions and various permissions which has been already afforded to the organizers by the Government".
Case Title: R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357
The Madras High Court has ruled that the genuineness of a community certificate/caste certificate of a government employee can be verified even after retirement from service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357]
Answering a reference, the full bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice K Kumaresh Babu and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that an appointment based on a fraudulent certificate would be invalid from the beginning and retirement would not wash away the same. The court also held that it could not protect the retirement benefits of an employee whose employment was invalid from the beginning.
Noting that fraud has no expiry date, the bench held that employees and Scrutiny Committees are empowered to verify the genuineness of caste certificate even when the certificate was issued prior to 1995.
Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court
Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court recently held that details regarding the pay scale/salary details of judges are not information that is exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358]
Justice M Dhandapani noted that the judges receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of India and since the salary is paid from public funds, a citizen cannot be prevented from knowing about the details of the same.
Political Identity Should Not Influence Police Response To Criminal Complaints: Madras High Court
Case Title: G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359
The Madras High Court recently observed that the police cannot take a different approach while dealing with cases, depending on the political ideology of the persons involved in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359]
Justice L Victoria Gowri thus directed the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to expeditiously process a complaint against persons for allegedly making objectionable social media posts about Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman.
The court noted that the freedom of speech and expression has a cherished position in a constitutional democracy; this freedom was not absolute. The court said that the law did not permit publication of material which amounted to a cognisable offence, merely because it related to a political personality. The court also stressed that the court could not adopt a different approach while dealing with complaints involving different political persons.
Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Direct Bank Transfer Of Compensation In Motor Accident Cases
Case Title: The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360
The Madras High Court has issued directions for disbursing compensation in motor accident cases by way of direct bank transfer. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360]
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the Chief Justice, to all Motor Accident Tribunals in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for strict compliance of the directions to ensure timely disbursement of just compensation to the claimants, in the interest of justice.
The court has directed all insurance companies, transport corporations and others liable for compensation to deposit the awarded/enhanced compensation by Direct Bank Transfer (NEFT/RTGS) into the bank account of the claimant, confirmed and specified by the Tribunal in its award.
Whistling At Child, Pulling Her Hand May Be Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court
Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361
The Madras High Court recently held that whistling at a minor girl and pulling her hand when she did not to respond is not sexual assault. The court said that such acts could only be termed as harassment and not assault. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361]
“From the statements of witnesses and materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner pulled the victim by his hand, when the victim failed to respond to his whistle. Such act cannot be straightaway termed as sexual intent and at most, it can be termed as harassment and not an act of sexual assault. Hence, the judgment needs to be re-considered,” Justice Nirmal Kumar said.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State
Case No: Crl OP (MD) 15390 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (July 28) reserved orders on a plea filed by Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan challenging his remand in a case registered over his alleged derogatory and threatening remarks against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reserved orders after hearing senior advocate P Wilson for Markandayan and State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan.
As per the prosecution, on July 18, Markandayan held a public meeting to express gratitude to the voters on behalf of the political party. During the meeting, he allegedly made highly derogatory, abusive, and threatening remarks against the Chief Minister. It was alleged that he had insulted the Chief Minister and said that the CM would be dealt with inside the Legislative Assembly and would be harmed if certain actions were taken.
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026
Former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru on Tuesday (July 28) urged the Madras High Court to review its earlier order directing the registration of a corruption FIR against him, contending that the order was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Nehru, made the submissions before a bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, which was hearing review petitions filed by Nehru and others against the High Court's February 20 order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The Advocate General, Vijay Narayan, had questioned the maintainability of the review petition filed by Nehru. He argued that since the orders were passed in a writ petition of criminal nature, there was a legal bar under Section 362 CrPC on entertaining a review against the same.
To this, Luthra argued that even if it was presumed that the orders were passed in a writ of criminal nature, no legal bar would apply in this case since the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Luthra emphasised that the moment a party in a case is not heard, that itself would become a ground for recall or review of the order.
Case Title: Dr K Gowrishankar v The State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP No 29682 of 2026
The Madras High Court has issued notice to the State Government on a plea seeking mandatory installation of statutory warning boards and labels, in Tamil language, in front of every liquor retail vending shop and on alcohol bottles, respectively.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered notice to the Principal Secretary (Health and Family Welfare Department), Additional Chief Secretary (Commissionerate of Prohibition and Excise), The Commissioner (Commissionerate of prohibition and excise), the Managing Director (TASMAC), the Chairman (TASMAC), the District Manager (TASMAC) and the District Collector (Cuddalore District).
The petition was filed by a Doctor who was working as a consultant physician. He submitted that as part of a medical camp, when he had examined persons, it was found that a majority of them were suffering from fatty liver. The petitioner submitted that regular alcohol consumption is associated with serious liver damage, which can be prevented if the individual is made aware of the health risk.