Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282 NOMINAL INDEX Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 PK Sekar Babu v The...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
NOMINAL INDEX
Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
PK Sekar Babu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
REPORT
Case Title: Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274
The Madras High Court has ordered a CBCID probe into the attack on V Suresh, Senior Advocate and General Secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties by persons allegedly associated with quarry operators during a public hearing. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274]
Criticising the investigation done by the State police into the matter, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the State had acted in a biased manner and had conducted the investigation without properly examining the organisers, participants or the injured persons and had hurriedly filed the final report. Noting that the right to a fair investigation was part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that it was a fit case to transfer the investigation.
Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275
The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable.
The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision.
Case Title: Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276
A 5-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity which cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to pendency of appeal. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice CV Karthikeyan, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observations while dealing with a reference made to it for deciding the following question of law:
1) Whether leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, can be granted to a prisoner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when his appeal against conviction is pending either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court?
2) Whether the power to exempt under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 can be exercised by the State to grant leave to a prisoner outside the scope of the said Rules when his appeal against conviction is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1961 SC 112?
Case Title: Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277
The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification refusing to grant a certificate to the movie 'Lakshmi Lawrence Kadhal'. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277]
Justice R Kalaimathi noted that the CBFC and the examining committee had, in unison, concluded that the movie was violative of guideline 2(xii) in several places and was not suitable for public exhibition.
The court held that the Board more conscious about the need to protect the cultural and religious beliefs and practices of the Indian citizens. The court also noted that Board had clearly stated the reasons for refusing certification. Thus, finding no infirmity, the court refused to interfere with the CBFC's order.
Case Title: PK Sekar Babu v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA PK Sekar Babu has withdrawn a plea filed by him seeking to quash an FIR registered by the police against him for allegedly attacking the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate Sinora Ashok, who contested the election from Harbuor Constituency.
The plea was withdrawn after Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan, who heard the plea on Thursday (26th June), said that he was not convinced with the grounds raised for quashing the FIR and was inclined to dismiss Sekar Babu's plea. Following this, a request was made to withdraw the plea, which the court allowed.
Case Title: Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279
The Madras High Court has declared as unconstitutional a Government Order which allowed a person who converted to Islam from Backwards Classes, Most Backwards Classes, Denotified Communities, or Scheduled Castes to be treated as BC (Muslim) and be issued with a community certificate as belonging to one of the 7 notified sects for availing reservation upon conversion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji held that the GO was strictly against the judicial pronouncements made by the High Court and the Supreme Court, holding that a person converting to Islam could only be treated as a Muslim.
The court also remarked that when Christian Missionaries and Islamic preachers had, throughout centuries, claimed that their religion offered social equality unlike Hinduism, which propagated caste, it was not appropriate to claim that Islam also had hierarchy.
Case Title: M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280
The Madras High Court has struck down Section 34C of the Registration Act 1908, inserted by the Registration (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act 2026 after finding it to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280]
Section 34C of the Registration Act dealt with the production of original documents. As per the Section, the registering officer before whom a document relating to immovable property is presented for registration, shall not register the same, unless the executant produces the previous original documents by which the right over the subject property was acquired by him, along with the Encumbrance certificate pertaining to the subject property, obtained 10 days prior to the date of presentation.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman held that the provision was nothing but a resurrection of old Rules (Rule 55A), which was already held unconstitutional by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court held that the new provision brought in restrictions on a person dealing with his own property, which was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Case Title: Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281
The Madras High Court has issued extensive guidelines for magistrates who are dealing with applications for custody and parentage under Section 4(iii) (a) (II) of the Surrogacy Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281]
As per the Act, no surrogacy or surrogacy procedures shall be conducted, undertaken, performed or initiated, unless the Director or the person in charge of the surrogacy clinic and the person qualified to do so are satisfied that the intending couple is in possession of a certificate of essentiality issued by the appropriate authority, including the order of the court.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the guidelines are intended to bring in uniformity in judicial practice and avoid unnecessary hardship to the couples, the surrogate mother, and the child.
The court also emphasised that while processing the applications, the Magistrate's role is limited to ensuring voluntariness, statutory compliance, and welfare of the child and the Magistrate was not expected to sit in appeal over findings by the Medical Board except in case of fraud.
Case Name: The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman held that an employee appointed belatedly due to administrative delay, but selected along with a batch before the cut-off date, is entitled to the old pension scheme (as applicable to that batch) and cannot be switched to the new pension scheme after two decades.
It was further noted that the delay in making her appointment was exclusively attributable to the authorities and not to the employee. It was held by the Division Bench that merely because she was appointed belatedly on account of the inaction of the authorities, the right conferred upon her could not be taken away, especially after a period of two decades.
It was held that the issuance of show cause notice to bring her under CPS was unsustainable
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others
Case No: LPA (MD) 9 of 2025
While hearing the appeals filed by the State against various orders passed in the contempt proceedings in connection with the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam row, the Madras High Court, on Monday (June 22), orally asked if the issue could be given a quietus.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman orally remarked that the division bench had already upheld the order of the single judge for lighting a lamp at the deepathoon (stone pillar) in the hill.
Remarking that the order does not affect anyone, the court asked the State what the difficulty was in implementing the order, instead of keeping the case pending before the High Court.
The court made the oral remarks on being informed that the State has filed a Special Leave Petition against the order of the division bench, which had upheld the order of the single judge to light lamp at the hill.
Case Title: XXX v Director General of Police and others
Case No: WP 20751 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu Government, on Monday (June 22), informed the Madras High Court that the state was in the process of bringing in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to expedite prosecution in cases of crimes against women and children.
Appearing before the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, Advocate General Vijay Narayan said that the government is also giving priority to upgrading the infrastructure, which would, in turn, help with speedy investigation and trial.
The AG also submitted that the State would establish more DNA testing laboratories in the cities across the State. The AG sought time to file a detailed report with respect to the steps taken by the State in this regard.
Case Title: Suo Moto Writ Petitioner v The Chief Secretary and Others
Case No: WP 23656 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on June 22 (Monday), 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 for removing stray dogs from public places.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed that priority should be given to educational institutions and hospitals.
It may be noted that on May 19, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed all High Courts in the country to register suo motu writ petitions to monitor compliance with its directions to remove dogs from the premises of educational institutions, hospitals, bus stands, railway stations, etc. The Supreme Court had also warned that it would initiate contempt proceedings if the officials did not comply with the orders.
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
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for former Tamil Nadu minister KN Nehru, on Tuesday (June 23), argued before the Madras High Court that the State could not change its position with respect to the registration of an FIR against Nehru in an alleged bribery case.
The submission was made when the Advocate General Vijay Narayanan informed the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan that the State was filing a memo to withdraw an earlier review petition filed by it against the order of the court, directing registration of FIR in an alleged bribery case in connection with appointments to Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department, based on information shared by ED.
Luthra submitted that the State had, during the hearing of the writ petition, submitted that it was conducting a preliminary enquiry in the case. Thereafter, the State had filed a review petition against the order of the bench. However, with the change in government, the State was now withdrawing the review.
Luthra argued that the State could not be allowed to change its stand with a change in the government and say that the winds have changed.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Case No: Crl RC 645 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (June 25), reserved orders on a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan reserved orders after hearing Ponmudi and Anandan.
The case concerns the comments made by Ponmudi against Saivism, Vaishnavism, and women. It may be noted that on April 17th, 2025, the High Court had asked the State Government to register an FIR against Ponmudi. When no FIR was registered, the court initiated suo motu proceedings, noting that Ponmudi's speech prima facie amounted to hate speech.