Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299 NOMINAL INDEX R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283 Vimala v The Director of Vigilance, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284 S Rameshkumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285 State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286 Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
NOMINAL INDEX
R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
Vimala v The Director of Vigilance, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
S Rameshkumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
V v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
S Divya v The Registrar General and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
REPORT
Case Title: R Ramesh Kumar v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283
The Madras High Court has recently held that morphing a woman's image and uploading it on social media is not a harmless prank but a calculated assault on her privacy, reputation, and emotional security. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 283]
Justice Victoria Gowri thus directed the police to conduct immediate verification and register an FIR with respect to a complaint regarding the morphing of a woman's photos. The court held that just because the woman was in Singapore, where she was employed, her physical absence should not dilute the duty of Indian Law enforcement agencies.
The court observed that complaints of this nature cannot be taken as a mere private dispute. The court observed that online sexual harassment, morphing, creation of fake profiles, etc was a serious intrusion into the bodily privacy and the constitutional protection of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Stays Inspector's Suspension, Finds DVAC Order Prima Facie 'Motivated'
Case Title: Vimala v The Director of Vigilance
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 284
Madras High Court has stayed the suspension of an Inspector of Police after noting that the suspension order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.
Justice PT Asha thus granted an interim stay till July 9, on a petition filed by Vimala, who was working as Inspector of Police, City Special Unit, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, DVAC.
Vimala had approached the court challenging the suspension order dated June 17, 2026, issued by the Deputy Director of the DVAC. Vimala submitted that she was served with the impugned suspension order stating that an inquiry into grave charges for misconduct and dereliction of duty against her was contemplated. Vimala argued that the suspension order did not contain any details of the alleged misconduct and was vague.
Case Title: S Rameshkumar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 285
The Madras High Court recently quashed the proceedings against three officials who were working with the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department in a case for allegedly misappropriating temple funds.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that there was no oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the case against the three officials. Thus, noting that continued proceedings would be malafide and an abuse of the process of law, the court allowed their pleas to quash the case against them.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Anandhasekar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286
The Madras High Court has confirmed the death sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting three minor girls aged 6, 7, and 8 years. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 286]
Confirming the death sentence imposed by the Tirunelveli POCSO Court, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the crime committed by the man was so heinous and devoid of human conscience that it demanded a judicial response which mirrored society's collective abhorrence. The bench added that sparing the life of such a person would be an act of misplaced mercy.
The court also observed that the case fell within the exception of rarest of the rare where an alternative punishment could not be given. The court added that the law must possess a spine of steel while dealing with persons who prey on children to satisfy their dark instinct. The court remarked that the judgment should serve as a warning that no one who manipulates, terrorises and destroys the youth was immune from law.
Case Title: Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287
The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the authorities of the Sri Arulmighu Abishta Varatharajaperumal Temple in Thanjavur District to permit temple entry to an American woman who had converted to Hinduism. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conduct of the woman clearly established her adherence to Hinduism. Thus, the court said that the woman was to be treated as a Hindu and not be denied recognition merely because of her Christian name. The court added that all rights and obligations that were available to a Hindu woman devotee would be applicable to the woman also.
The court also observed that Hinduism was an inclusive and accommodating faith which did not prescribe any mandatory formal ceremony of conversion.
Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges, after noting that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment.
The court remarked that this would send a wrong message to the public, especially when the Rules clearly provide for direct recruitment in case the in-service candidates did not qualify for recruitment.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289
The Madras High Court has dismissed the plea filed by YouTuber journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe 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. The court had reserved orders in the plea earlier today. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that public interest litigation is a tool intended to reach marginalised and vulnerable segments of society and not a tool for vindicating personal animosity.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 2nd), dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea, effectively refusing to interfere with the private complaint filed by Anandan. The court had reserved orders on the plea on June 25th.
Case Title: V v. S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291
While affirming an order of dissolution of marriage, the Madras High Court recently held that a husband questioning the paternity of child born in marriage and asking the wife to undergo a DNA examination would be mental cruelty on the wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that when the wife came to the matrimonial home after the birth of the child, the husband had questioned her on who the father of the child was. The bench held that such a question would have shocked the wife to the extreme and it directly affected her honour and self-respect.
Case Title: Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292
While dealing with a plea to ensure that a temple procession is carried out through an area predominantly inhabited by members of Scheduled Caste community, the Madras High Court recently observed that constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure that religious practices, customs, etc do not result in caste-based exclusion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292]
Justice Victoria Gowri observed that Article 17 of the Constitution does not merely prohibit untouchability but any disability imposed on a person solely on the basis of caste.
The court highlighted that the right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The court observed that no religious practice or customary usage could survive constitutional scrutiny if it violated equality, dignity or fraternity.
Case Title: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293
The Madras High Court has kept in abeyance a single judge's order staying the suspension of an Inspector of Police (DVAC). The single judge had stayed the suspension order, noting that the order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan kept in abeyance the stay order after being informed that the single judge had passed the order solely on the basis of submissions made by the Inspector, without verifying the facts.
Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294
The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 3rd), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by DMK MLA Anita R Radhakrishnan in a case registered against him for making objectionable statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. During the course of the hearing, the judge orally remarked that Radhakrishnan, being a member of the legislative assembly, should not have made such statements.
The court also orally remarked that the State of Tamil Nadu has been seeing leaders who have come from the cine industry since 1967. The court added that these leaders were elected by the people, and in such circumstances, the statement made by Radhakrishnan was unwarranted.
Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295
The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to provide police protection to AIADMK MLA CV Shanmugam in light of continuous life threats faced by him. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295].
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that Shanmugam has made out a prima facie case for grant of police protection, to protect his life and limb.
Woman Govt Employee Entitled To Only 12 Weeks' Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Divya v The Registrar General and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman government employee can be given only twelve weeks of maternity leave for the birth of the third child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel observed that a recent Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu government, which amended Fundamental Rule 101(A) of the Tamil Nadu Government, applicable to government employees, was in line with the order of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi v Government of Tamil Nadu, which had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks.
Noting that the High Court could not grant relief which was over and beyond the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Rules, the court dismissed the plea of a woman, seeking 365 days' maternity leave for her third child.
Case Title: Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297
While quashing a sedition case registered against a publishing house for publishing a book which contained a statement that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation, the Madras High Court held that such a statement could not be seen as hatred against the nation or the government in the present day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that India is unified by heart and soul, and such statements could at best cause annoyance in the present social milieu, and the person making such a statement would only be seen as a person having mental health issues. The court added that such a sentence, in the present day, would not excite any hatred among the public.
Case Title: Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298
The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Joint Secretary of the External Affairs Ministry and the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs for failing to assist the court in a habeas corpus plea, in connection with the release of a man who was convicted in a Narcotics case in Sri Lanka. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298].
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the man had been repatriated to India and his sentence had been adapted to one under the Indian Law. However, there was no material to show that consent was obtained from Sri Lanka before the same.
The court also noted that despite repeated enquiries, the counsel was not able to show any communication, and in the absence of materials, the court could not infer that the Sri Lankan government had accepted or informed about the adoption of the sentence under Indian law. The court thus deemed it fit to impose costs.
Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299
The Madras High Court has recently stressed the need to appoint a separate Vigilance Commissioner to advise the government on administrative challenges and steps to be taken to prevent corruption in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299]
The court added that corruption can be eradicated only through consistent action, and this could be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that at present, there was no separate Vigilance Commissioner for the State of Tamil Nadu and a senior officer heading a major sensitive department was holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner. The court remarked that a government which aims to be corruption-free should have an independent Vigilance Commissioner.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Case No: WP 23081 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary has informed the Madras High Court that acceptance of the resignation of a legislative assembly member does not absolve that member from the consequences of a disqualification with respect to his/her conduct before resignation.
The submission was made before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan which is hearing a plea filed by Chief Whip of the AIADMK Agri SS Krishnamurthy, challenging the acceptance of the resignations of 4 MLAs who contested the assembly elections as AIADMK members but quit after the polls and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
Filing the counter affidavit in the case, the Assembly Secretary submitted that the petition was wholly misconceived and proceeded upon a fundamentally erroneous legal premise that acceptance of a member's resignation operates to extinguish, defeat, or render infructuous the disqualification proceedings pending against the member under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures
Case No : Arb Appln 1279 of 2026
Acclaimed filmmaker Sudha Kongara has approached the Madras High Court over unpaid remuneration of Rs. 8.39 crores for her work in connection with the tamil movie “Parasakthi”.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice K Kumaresh Babu on Tuesday (June 30), the court orally directed the respondent, Dawn Pictures (producer of the movie), to not release the movie on satellite till July 8.
Sudha has moved the court against Dawn Pictures seeking payment of Rs 8.39 crore along with an interest of 12% from February 8, 2026. The amount has been claimed as a measure for securing a claim amount till the passing of an arbitral award.
Case Title: V Kavi Ganesan v The Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Case No: WP 25159 of 2026
V Kavi Ganesan, an advocate and Councillor for Greater Chennai Corporation (Division 12, Zone I), has moved the Madras High Court to ensure that no educational institutions' premises are used for political, ideological, communal, personality glorification, divisive or any other activities unrelated to the educational objectives of the institution in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner submits that children are the most vulnerable and impressionable sections of society, who do not understand the difference between civic education and political propaganda or between voluntary participation and institutional pressure. It has been argued that educational institutions must be kept free from political celebrations, political slogans, personality-cult promotion, and partisan activities.
Case Title: Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department
Case No: WP 109380 of 2026 (Filing No)
A lawyer and Joint Secretary of the District Advocates Wing (Villupuram District) of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party has approached the Madras High Court alleging corruption in the appointment of Government Advocates in the State.
Gnanasoundari has filed a plea alleging that the District Secretary of the party in Villupuram District received around Rs 5 lakh to Rs 30 Lakh for each post and made the appointments illegally.
The petitioner submitted that on June 29, 2026, at 12:11 pm, a list of candidates who were appointed as Government Advocates was circulated on WhatsApp. The petitioner submitted that as per the notification calling for the post of Government Advocates, the cut-off date for application was 5:45 pm on June 29, 2026, but the final list of candidates was circulated even before that.
Case Title: RV Ashok Kumar v The State
Case No: Crl OP 17241 of 2026
RV Ashok Kumar, brother of DMK MLA Senthil Balaji, has approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging that Kumar had attempted to influence TVK MLA from Uthangarai Constituency, Dr N Elaiyaraja, by offering him Rs 35 Crore in an attempt to influence the vote for Assembly Speaker.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice C Kumarappan, the State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan informed the court that the petition was filed only yesterday and requested time to get instructions in the case. Allowing the request, the court adjourned the hearing to July 6. (Monday).
On June 26, Elaiyaraja had given a complaint in the Triplicane Police Station alleging that he was contacted over the phone by a person named Thirunavukkarassu who informed Elaiyaraja that a major political party would be moving a resolution against the Speaker in the Assembly and urged Elaiyaraja to vote in their favour. It was submitted that Elaiyaraja was offered Rs 35 Crore for the same, and he was threatened with dire consequences if he did not act in the particular manner.
On July 1, three persons were arrested by the police in connection with the case. The police later said that, as per the investigation, Elaiyaraja was contacted at the behest of Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar.