Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 NOMINAL INDEX V v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229 Muthukumar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230 V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231 The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
NOMINAL INDEX
V v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
Muthukumar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
M Vigneshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
Nanjil Mugilan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
D Sathishkumar v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
Murugan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
REPORT
Hindu Wife Removing 'Thali' Amounts To Mental Cruelty To Husband: Madras High Court Grants Divorce
Case Title: V v. C
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 228
While upholding an order granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court observed that the removal of the Thali (mangalsutra) by a Hindu wife would amount to mental cruelty upon the husband.
The court also observed after considering the evidence, the husband's allegation that the wife converted to Christiany also cannot be thrown away.
Justice P Vadamalai thereafter said:
"From the above, it is very clear that the respondent/wife adopted Christianity as her daughter's name and her marriage to a Christian is revealed from Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and hence, the allegation of conversion of religion by the respondent/wife cannot be thrown away upon consideration of the entire evidence on record. This Court holds that the removal of Thali would reflect mental cruelty".
Though the wife argued that the High Court cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court held that the same could be taken note of by the court while considering a plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Case Title: M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 229
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 2), permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking probe into alleged suppression of income by TVK chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan accepted the request of the petitioner to withdraw the plea and ordered accordingly.
The petition, filed by M Rajkumar of Chennai has sought a direction to the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (central) to examine the materials and findings recorded in search proceedings, sworn statement recoded during the assessment proceedings and the penalty order passed under the Income Tax Act against Vijay and pass appropriate prosecution proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Case Title: Muthukumar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 230
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of four men in a double murder case after noting that the investigating officer had conducted a bizarre investigation, leaving out vital witnesses and not recording their statements.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case only because of a defective investigation. Taking note of judicial pronouncements to this effect, the court ordered departmental action against the investigating officer and ordered it to be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Case Title: V Jayapal and others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 231
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against 15 members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) who had assembled unlawfully to celebrate the organisation's 100th year ceremony.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the parties had only assembled unlawfully to celebrate 100 years of the organisation and no public was affected by the same. The court remarked that the persons involved were following their rights provided by the Constitution and unlawful assembly by itself would not be an offence.
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Kathiresan and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 232
The Madras High Court recently enhanced compensation for a man who was left in a persistent vegetative state following a road accident.
Noting the advocate's failure to appeal for enhanced compensation, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that once an advocate enters appearance for a client, he is expected to offer proper legal advice, including necessity of filing cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement of compensation whenever required.
The court added that the advocate's failure to provide proper legal advise is dereliction of duty.
Case Title: Mikavel v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 233
The Madras High Court recently highlighted that the true success of the child protection laws in the state rests not merely on the number of convictions secured, but on the overall well-being of the child and the sensitivity with which the institutions treat the child who comes into the justice system.
Justice Victoria Gowri was dealing with 4 petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings which were initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. During the course of the proceedings, the court concluded that the four cases were initiated falsely, by coercing the child.
The court observed that a child, who is made to narrate a false sexual narrative at the instance of an adult may suffer emotional confusion, social fear, shame and psychological burden. The court also remarked that the investigating agencies should display highest degree of sensitivity before registering allegations under the POCSO Act.
The court thus asked the Secretary to Government (Home Department), Secretary (Directorate of Social Welfare), and the Secretary (Department of Law and Justice) to consider framing and formulating a coordinated State wide sensitisation programme titled “Singapen Sensitisation Workshop”
Case Title: Minor Atonu Saha and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 234
The Madras High Court recently directed the Authorisation Committee under the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to grant permission to a Bangladeshi mother to donate one of her kidneys to her minor son, who was suffering from end-stage renal chronic kidney disease.
While doing so, Justice GR Swaminathan criticised the Authorisation Committee for denying permission for transplantation on alleged suspicion about the spousal relationship between the minor's mother and father. The judge noted that the spousal relationship was irrelevant and the authorisation committee should have only considered whether the recipient was the son of the donor. The court thus held that the order was vitiated by irrelevant consideration.
Case Title: M Vigneshwaran v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 235
The Madras High Court recently held that a dying declaration made by a person would not be unreliable merely because the person had suffered 100% burns at the time of making the declaration.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the dying declaration can be accepted where it is proved that at the time of making the statement, the declarant was "in a conscious and fit state of mind".
The bench held that the decisive test is not the extent of injuries but whether there is reliable evidence to show that the person was mentally fit.
Case Title: Nanjil Mugilan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 236
The Madras High Court recently observed that the consent of the Central Government would be required in cases of remission only when the period of sentencing under the Central Act is still pending.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan thus held that when the period of sentence under the Central Act has been served by a convict, the approval from the Central Government is no longer necessary for granting remission by the State Government.
Case Title: Thomas @ Dhamas and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 237
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against two men for allegedly abusing a police officer and preventing him from discharging his official duty.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the final report was filed in a mechanical manner without properly examining whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences were satisfied. The court highlighted that criminal law could not be used to silence a citizen merely because he questions the legality of police action.
The court said that in the present case the prosecution materials were vague and the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out against the petioners.
Case Title: D Sathishkumar v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 238
The Madras High Court recently held that the past conduct of an accused, who was evading arrest and absconding at the time of investigation, can be considered for denying him permission to travel abroad.
Justice C Kumarappan observed that while the court has to exercise its discretion in a humane and compassionate manner, considering the past conduct, there was every possibility of delaying the trial.
Madras High Court Criticises Vigilance Department For Not Probing Allegations Of TNSTCScam
Case Title: S Murugesan v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 239
The Madras High Court has asked the Vigilance Department to probe allegations of fake records being created to show that buses were plying on roads.
While doing so, Justice B Pugalendhi criticised the Vigilance Department for not probing the matter earlier despite receiving complaints and merely forwarding the same to the Additional Chief Secretary. The court added that the department should have conducted a probe to find out whether such fraud was being conducted on other bus routes also.
The court also observed that the department, which was expected to monitor 14 lakh government employees, was functioning for namesake and filing 100 cases per year just to show that they are functioning.
Case Title: M Appavu v IS Inbadurai and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 240
The Madras High Court recently declared former speaker Appavu as the winning candidate for the Radhapuram Assembly Constituency in Tirunelveli District for the 2016-2021 General Assembly Elections.
Noting the unfortunate 10-year delay in ordering the case due to the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, Justice G Jayachandran highlighted that when courts do not adhere to the mandate for expeditious trial as provided under the Representation of the People Act, it undermines democracy and the true spirit of adult franchise.
The court added that the present case was a mockery of justice, where people of the constituency were forced to bear a person as their representative though he was not duly elected.
Case Title: Pitchai and Others v The State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 241
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases registered against six individuals for alleged election-related offences, citing "vague" and "generalised allegations" which were not supported by foundational facts as well as serious infirmities in the prosecution's case.
While doing so, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the courts were guardians not just against crime but against misuse of criminal process also. The court added that while democracy needs strict adherence to electoral discipline, not every election-related offence could be converted into a criminal trial.
The court said that the entire prosecution rested solely upon interested police witnesses without independent corroboration. It said that while absence of independent witnesses may not always be fatal, in election-related prosecutions occurring in crowded public spaces, the total absence of neutral testimony assumes great significance.
Case Title: Murugan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl ultimately leading to pregnancy and wherein the trial court had relied on the child's DNA report to substantiate offence of penetrative sexual assault.
The appellant claimed that neither the girl nor her parents supported the prosecution's case and the trial court had convicted the appellant only based on the DNA report of the child born to the girl.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the trial court was right in relying upon the positive DNA report to conclude that the child was born to the victim through the accused. The court noted that the DNA test laid the foundational facts of the case, which was corroborated with the statement of the victim to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v The Joint Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 243
The Madras High Court recently closed film producer Akash Bhaskaran's plea challenging the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against him in connection with an alleged money laundering linked to TASMAC.
Bhaskaran had filed the plea challenging ED's search at his premises and to quash all consequential proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a similar plea challenging the ED action against another individual was closed, granting him liberty to raise issues before the Adjudicating Authority.
In the present case also, noting that the Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the attachment of property, the court closed the plea, granting liberty to Bhaskar to raise issues before the Authority.
Case Title: Ananya Radhakrisnan v The Union Home Minister and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 244
The Madras High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a plea seeking to condemn the relegation of Tamil Nadu's state song, “Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu”, to third position during the swearing-in ceremony of the new Chief Minister Vijay.
Notably, actor and TVK head Vijay was sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State on May 10.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan permitted the withdrawal of the plea and gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Central Government circular regarding events attended by the Governor of the State.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v State
Case No: Crl OP 11817 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 1), asked the Police not to file the final report in an attempt to murder case registered against YouTuber journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar till disposal of a petition filed by him seeking to quash the FIR.
When the quash petition came up before Justice M Nirmal Kumar, the prosecution sought time to file its response. Accepting the request, the court granted the prosecution time to file a status report. The court also asked the prosecution not to file a final report in the case till Shankar's plea is disposed of.
Case Title: V Eswaran v Government of Tamil Nadu and Another
Case No: WP 20554 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to put in an income ceiling for students belonging to the disadvantaged group under the Right To Education Act.
When the plea came up for hearing before the bench, Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the bench issued notice to the Secretary, School Education Department and the Directorate of Private Schools.
Case Title: IS Inbadurai v AT Durai Kumar and Others
Case No: Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 and Rev.Aplwp. Crl. Nos.2 & 3 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Friday (June 5), asked State not to take any action till June 23, against ex-Minister KN Nehru, others in an alleged bribery case in connection with appointments to Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by ED.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the direction after taking note of the submission by Tamil Nadu Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who informed the court that the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had already registered an FIR in connection with the case.