Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 NOMINAL INDEX K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 Udayakumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 A Rajeshkannan v The...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
NOMINAL INDEX
K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
Udayakumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
P Palanikumar v R Selvi, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
N v N, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
REPORT
Madras High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeal Against Release Of "Dhruva Natchathiram" Movie
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by creditors of actor-director Gautam Vasudev Menon, challenging an order of a single judge paving the way for the release of the much-anticipated Tamil movie "Dhruva Natchathiram".
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi has dismissed the appeals filed by K Prem Kumar and K Punniyamoorthy.
Case Title: Udayakumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
While dealing with a criminal appeal of a murder convict, the Madras High Court expressed displeasure in the manner in which the students, who had witnessed the attack on their fellow classmate by the accused, had turned hostile during trial. 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that it was disappointing to see students, who witnessed the incident, give a different version in the court.
In this backdrop, it observed that there was no use in merely expressing dissent and views on social media and unless those were translated into action, students would only become “paper tigers” in real life.
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (June 16), dismissed a PIL seeking a CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in the manner in which four MLAs from All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party resigned from their posts after winning State assembly elections and joined Chief Minister Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 256]
The bench has now dismissed the plea, stating that sudden realignment in political loyalty, by itself, is not an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without any supporting evidence.
The court also noted that the plea was filed on assumptions of corruption, without any evidence to prove the same. The court added that the petitioner had not given any details of transactions in connection with the alleged corruption and the plea itself was a classic example of a fishing expedition.
Madras High Court Rejects Flipkart Founders' Review Plea Against ED Show-Cause Notice In FEMA Case
Case Title: Sachin Bansal v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 257
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the owners of Flipkart – Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal, seeking to review an earlier order of the High Court dismissing their plea against a show-cause notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a FEMA Case.
Justice S Sounthar dismissed the review application filed by the duo
The petitioners along with some other companies had approached the High Court challenging the complaint made by the Deputy Director of the ED and the show cause notices. The allegation against the petitioners was that they had contravened the provisions of Section 6 (3) (b) r/w Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 r/w Regulations 3, 4 and 5 and para-3 and para 9(1) (B) (i) of Schedule 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 and annexure – B to para 2 of Schedule – 1 of TISPRO Regulations 2000 r/w consolidated FDI Policies dated 01.04.2010 and 01.10.2010.
Case Title: A Rajeshkannan v The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
The Madras High Court has asked the District Collector of Madurai, the Commissioner of Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the Dean of Government Rajaji Hospital and other authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that the mortal remains of Akash, a 26-year-old who was allegedly killed in custodial violence, are disposed of in a dignified manner.
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the body had been remaining unclaimed for almost 90 days and the family had not been receiving the mortal remains despite judicial orders. The court observed that when sufficient opportunity had been given to the family, the court was left with no other option but to ask the State to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Name : M. Balasubramanian v. The Director of Agriculture and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that employee who had been promoted before completing the qualifying period for grant of Special Grade could not claim such benefits by delaying the assumption of charge of the promotional post.
Case Title: V Vignesh v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in assets declared by Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay in his election affidavit.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting that the bench had previously dismissed a batch of pleas seeking similar relief.
It may be noted that in April 2026, the bench had issued notice on the plea after noting that the alleged discrepancy of Rs 100 crore in the two affidavits filed by Vijay was an irregularity.
Case Title: Goutham Siva v The Returning Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (June 17) dismissed a plea seeking directions to Income Tax and election authorities to probe alleged irregularities in financial declarations made by BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan in her election affidavits filed in 2024 and in 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 261]
The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea, noting the bench's previous orders in a similar plea.
Case Title: R Kumaravel v Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), dismissed a plea seeking income tax probe into alleged discrepancies in the assets declared by former Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and current Leader of Opposition Udayanidhi Stalin in his election affidavit for the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2026. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 262]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the High Court could not issue such directions while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Shakthi Shyam v The Dean and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While setting aside an order of a single judge directing Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to permit a group of students to continue their course and to attend the examinations despite a shortage of attendance, the Madras High Court stressed on the need for physical education in classrooms.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that online classes would not be a substitute for physical mode of learning. The court added that AI tools like ChatGPT could never be equated with a qualified teacher and cannot teach aspects of integrity and morality, which are important aspects of the legal profession.
The court observed that studying law connects students to society and gives them an opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. The court added that legal education was not just a means to make money but requires a commitment to society. The court added that only classroom debates and dynamic social discussions would help in building legal ideas.
Madras High Court Stays OTT Release Of Telugu Dubbed Version Of "Drishyam 3"
Case Title: MS Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd v Aashirvad Cinemas and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (June 17), restrained the makers of Malayalam movie “Drishyam 3” from releasing the Telugu-dubbed version of the movie on OTT platforms.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu passed the interim order on a plea moved by film production company Rajkumar Theatre Pvt Ltd. The company had approached the Madras High Court seeking to restrain the producers and director and their agents, employees, assignees, licensees, and everyone claiming through them from infringing the company's exclusive copyright to remake and exploit the movie in Telugu language, by releasing the dubbed version of the movie in Telugu, anywhere in the world.
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to all Returning Officers involved in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 265]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has dismissed the plea filed by Arjunan Sampath, founding President of the Indu Makkal Katchi. The court underlined that it could not use its extraordinary powers under Article 226 to micro-manage the election process. The bench added that any grievance relating to disqualification or false declaration of a candidate should be redressed by filing an election petition.
'Coimbatore Communally Sensitive': Madras High Court Stops Construction Of Church Near Temple
Case Title: Balasubramaniyam N v The Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently ordered a temporary injunction restraining the construction of a Church near a Mariyamman Temple in Coimbatore District.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that mala fide intentions could not be ruled out when a large church was proposed to be constructed near a temple, despite opposition from the majority Hindu community.
The court also noted that the Church was proposed to be constructed on a public road. The court thus noted that the authorities should not have permitted the construction of the church on a road, when there was vigorous opposition from the Hindu community. The court added that if there was a right and there was unreasonable opposition, the State could go to any extent to uphold the right. However, in the present case, the court opined that there was no such right to construct church in the road.
Case Title: Puja Kumari v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
The Madras High Court recently refused to set aside an order of a single judge dismissing a student's plea asking Chettinad Academy of Research and Education to grant her course completion certificate and MBBS Degree Certificate without insisting on repayment of fee, which was seized by NIA for alleged terror links. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 267]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the fee paid by the student during her MBBS course was seized by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), holding that the fee was funded through Maoist activities.
The bench observed that if the student was in fact innocent, she could approach the Special Court for releasing the seized funds. The court added that the college could not be expected to litigate against the NIA to retrieve the fee.
Case Title: Arumugam v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High Court has observed that the impact of hormonal changes during teenage years can be a relevant factor while deciding the sentence in cases arising out of romantic relationships, even though consent or a romantic relationship is no defence under the POCSO Act.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan reduced the life sentence imposed on the convict, who was hardly 19 years old at the time of commission of the offence, to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Case Title: P Palanikumar v R Selvi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court recently observed that the Indian Evidence Act enables a judge to ask any question that he pleases during trial with respect to any relevant or irrelevant fact during the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 269]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the judge is obliged to exercise the sweeping power available to him to pose questions and clear out any suspicion that he has. The court added that the judge should not sit like a sphinx during trial but is expected to engage with the bar through dialogue. The court added that this exercise is also an important facet of the principle of natural justice.
Case Title: Venkateswaran v The Union of India and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (June 18), dismissed a plea seeking a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure fair, uniform, transparent and uninterrupted environment for students writing the NEET UG 2026 examination. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 270]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after noting that the issue was already pending before the Supreme Court and it would not be appropriate for the HC to intervene in the matter during the pendency of the case.
The petition, filed by Venkatesawaran from Krishnagiri District of Tamil Nadu, had sought a direction to the authorities to formulate a comprehensive SOP to ensure that the students get prescribed time to write the examination across all examination centres.
Case Title: N v N
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271
While refusing to grant divorce to a husband who claimed to have suffered mental cruelty due to his wife's alleged undisclosed Schizophrenia condition, the Madras High Court held that making such unfounded allegations regarding the mental health of the wife not just amounts to cruelty but is an intrusion into the wife's privacy and personal autonomy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 271]
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that making reckless and humiliating allegations against a spouse, touching upon mental illness or emotional instability, instead of extending emotional support, would deeply wound the dignity, self-worth, and emotional well-being of the spouse.
Case Title: K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272
Allowing a 23-year-old woman to terminate her 15-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court recently observed that the law did not compel motherhood and a woman should have the freedom to decide if she wants to continue her pregnancy or not. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272]
Justice Victoria Gowri also observed that the Constitution places trust in the choice of a woman and considers her autonomy as an indispensable part of her dignity. The court added that the courts are duty-bound to protect this dignity and autonomy.
Case Title: R Sangeetha v The Registrar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273
Granting relief to a mother pursuing her LLM degree, the Madras High Court recently held that the academic timelines cannot be strictly applied to a woman who was undergoing pregnancy and childbirth. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 273]
Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar directed the Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University and the Principal of Madurai Government Law College to permit the woman to submit her dissertation and participate in the viva voce examination in June 2026. While doing so, the court emphasised that educational institutions were expected to approach such situations with compassion, fairness and sensitivity.
The court added that reasonable accommodation should be given to a woman so that she is not deprived of her educational opportunities solely due to pregnancy, childbirth and post-natal responsibilities. The court added that a balance must be struck to ensure that motherhood does not become an obstacle in the completion of education.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: B Ramkumar Adityan v The Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 22340 of 2026
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on a plea seeking CBI probe into alleged irregularities and corruption in the manner in which four MLAs from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party resigned from their posts after winning State assembly elections and joined Chief Minister Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day.
The division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said that it will consider the plea and pass orders. It however questioned how a public interest litigation seeking a CBI probe would be maintainable in the case.
Case Title: Ponraj v State and Another
Case No: Crl OP 15258 of 2026
Political commentator V Ponraj has approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash a case registered against him for allegedly defamatory statements made by him against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
It may be noted that a vacation bench of the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Ponraj in connection with the same case, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary. The court had, however, stated that Ponraj should have been more careful while making statements in public, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.
Plea In Madras High Court Challenges Election Win Of CM Vijay From Trichy East Constituency
An election petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the victory of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay from the Tiruchirappalli (Trichy) East Constituency.
The petition has been filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) candidate who contested in the Trichy East Constituency, Dr Inigo S Irudayaraj, who lost to Vijay by 27,416 votes.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea by Chief Whip of the AIADMK Agri SS Krishnamurthy, challenging the acceptance of resignation of 4 MLAs who contested the assembly elections as AIADMK member but quit after the polls and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has issued notice to the Speaker and the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the Election Commission of India, the Chief Electoral Officer and the MLAs who resigned from their constituencies.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State
Case No: WP 23757 of 2026
Youtuber and journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar has approached the Madras High Court seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the current head of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Arun IPS, in light of the recent remarks against him by the High Court.
In his plea, Shankar submitted that while setting aside a detention order passed by Arun, the bench had made a categorical finding that Arun had passed the detention order for extraneous circumstances. He added that the court had also remarked that Arun was habituated to issuing such detention orders which were ultimately quashed by the Court.
Shankar added that despite such grave observation by the High Court, the State had not taken any action against the officer.
Shankar submitted that the continued inaction of the State, despite clear judicial censure, has given rise to a reasonable apprehension that no impartial enquiry or investigation would be undertaken by the State authorities.