Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 NOMINAL INDEX Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 XXXX v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
NOMINAL INDEX
Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
XXXX v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
Rajammal v The Administrator and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
REPORT
Case Title: Sun TV Network Limited v R Sukanya and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 245
The Madras High Court has upheld an order a 2015 order of the trial court directing Sun TV to pay around Rs 10 Lakh compensation to actress Sukanya for airing the defamatory statements made by notorious criminal Veerappan in a 1996 interview with investigative journalist Gopal @ Nakheeran Gopal.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu upheld the order after noting that there was malice on the part of Sun TV for not editing the defamatory part and not airing a regret in its own channel later. It may be noted that Sun TV had issued a regret in another magazine. The court noted that there was no explanation given on why the regret was published in a third-party magazine instead of airing it in the channel itself.
Case Title: XXXX v State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 246
The Madras High Court recently directed the State Government to pay Rs 10 Lakh each as compensation to three minor boys who were victims of sexual assault by their father and paternal uncle.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanei Prasad, where the court emphasized compensation in such exceptional circumstances where the children are victims of incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent. The court thus thought it was a fit case to grant compensation since the children were subjected to assault over a period of years, resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder, which needed continuous therapy.
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247
The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 8th), closed a plea challenging a notification issued by the Tamil Nadu police, directing the removal/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the posts in question have been deleted by the users and thus nothing survived in the matter, making it infructuous.
The petition was filed by social activist P Chockalingam, challenging the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu police under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
Case Title: Sarkar Syed Habibullah Sha Kahdari Arif Rabbani Hazarat Dargha v Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 248
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board declaring a 240-year-old Dargah as Waqf property.
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavathi observed that for declaring a property as Waqf property, it had to be surveyed and notified as per the procedure laid down in the Waqf Act. The court added that every grave or dargah could not be termed as Waqf property and the existence of an endowment was essential. The court added that the Waqf Board cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the property is a Muslim religious institution.
Case Title: P Milany v Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 249
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to furnish the election-related documents of Udhayanidhi Stalin and other documents sought for by a candidate who contested from the same constituency for filing an election affidavit.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan rejected the ECI's argument that the documents could be furnished only after 45 days from the date of election. The court noted that the Representation of People Act was a self-contained code that provided the time limits within which an election petition had to be filed (45 days).
The court observed that of ECI retained the documents, the petitioner would not be able to file the Election Petition with necessary supporting documents, and his right to move the court itself would become negatory.
Case Title: Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250
The Madras High Court recently remitted a case back to the trial court after noting that the judgment in the case was pronounced without hearing the oral arguments of the defence side. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250]
Emphasizing the requirement of hearing the defence side during the trial, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that even if the counsel for the defence does not appear, it is for the court to take alternative steps and the case cannot be dismissed for default.
Case Title: Rajammal v The Administrator and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 251
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by a wife seeking to stop the disbursement of pensionary benefits and other service benefits to her husband over unpaid maintenance dues.
Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar observed that the High Court could not be converted into an execution court or family court. The court observed that if the wife succeeded in her maintenance case against the husband, it was upon her to initiate execution proceedings for execution of the order.
Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 252
The Madras High Court has observed that Tamil Nadu can claim to have achieved "true change" only when caste is eradicated from the minds of people, while emphasizing the need for sustained efforts to eliminate caste-based considerations in society.
Making the observation in a recent judgment, the Court noted that the results of the latest Assembly elections in the State demonstrated that voters could be persuaded to look beyond caste and community identities while exercising their franchise.
The Court further stressed that social transformation requires a corresponding change in public consciousness and attitudes.
Case Title: S Sathish Kumar and Others v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 253
The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases against a husband's relatives under Section 498A of the IPC after noting that the allegations against the relatives were vague and unsupported by documents.
Justice Victoria Gowri underlined that criminal prosecution cannot be launched against a husband's relative merely because there is matrimonial discord among the couple.
The court highlighted that criminal process was a shield for the aggrieved and not a sword for vengeance. It added that while courts should always ensure that the wife's voice must not be silenced, it should also ensure that the relatives of the husband are not subjected to a long criminal trial merely because of their relationship with the husband, without materials.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Thirumurugan v The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Case No: WP (MD) 15180 of 2026
The Madras High Court has sought the response of the State Government on a plea seeking to enhance the compensation payable to the fishermen as relief compensation during the time of the fishing ban in the State.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman asked the State to respond to a plea filed by Thirumurugan, an Advocate from Ramanathapuram and State Coordinator of Fishermen Wing (Meenavar Pasarai) of Naam Tamilar Katchi party.
It may be noted that in its election manifesto, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, which ultimately formed government in Tamil Nadu, had promised to provide Rs 20,000 per month financial support to the fishermen during the annual fishing ban.
Case Title: Santiago Martin v Deputy Director (batch cases)
Case No: CMA 1411 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Tuesday issued notice to ED on a plea by lottery baron Santiago Martin, his wife and AIADMK MLA Leema Rose Martin, daughter Daisy Aadhav Arjuna, challenging PMLA Appellate Tribunal's order confirming the attachment of properties by the agency in connection with an alleged money laundering case.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered notice to the department, returnable by six weeks in a batch of 39 appeals filed by the individuals and companies connected to them.
The appeals are against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for PMLA in New Delhi which upheld an order of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA confirming the provisional attachment of properties by the ED. The plea also seeks to release the attachment.
Case Title: R Sudha v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 19498 of 2026
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 9), said that the Central Bureau of Investigation was not a necessary party in the plea filed by Congress MP R Sudha challenging the enrolment of AG Perarivalan, one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan thus dismissed the plea against CBI after noting that the petitioner was not pressing for the interim relief of CBI probe into the enrolment process.
The court was hearing the plea filed by Sudha against Perarivalan's enrolment. Sudha had sought to declare Section 24A of the Advocates Act as unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced with the death penalty and imprisonment for life to enroll as Advocates after a period of 2 years from their remission. She also sought to declare the enrolment of AG Perarivalan as illegal and void.
Case Title: Thirumurugan v The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Case No: WMP (MD) 11604 of 2026 in WP(MD) 18070/2025
The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to respond to a plea seeking to formulate and implement a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for appointing Law Officers for the State, to ensure transparency, meritocracy and adherence to statutory rules.
The Madurai bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has issued notice to the Principal Secretary (Home Department) and the Principal Secretary (Law Department).
Case Title: Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi v Speaker
Case No: WP 90426 of 2026 (Filing Number)
The Desiya Makkal Sakthi Katchi has moved the Madras High Court, challenging the acceptance of the resignations of three MLAs who quit the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) after their victory to join the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK).
The petition challenges the acceptance of the resignations of Maragatham Kumaravel, who won from Maduranthagam Legislative Assembly Constituency, S. Jayakumar, who won from Perundurai Legislative Assembly Constituency, and P. Sathyabama, who won from Dharapuram Legislative Assembly Constituency.
Case Title: Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP Crl 722 of 2025
The five judge bench of the Madras High Court is set to decide whether a prisoner can be given ordinary or emergency leave during the pendency of his criminal appeal.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice CV Karthikeyan, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice Sunder Mohan will be deciding on the following questions of law:
- 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?
- 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: Ananya Radhakrishnan v The Joint Secretary to Government of India
Case No: WP 21971 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Friday (June 12), issued notice, returnable by 8 weeks, challenging a Government Order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which mandates the order in which the National Song Vande Mataram and the National Anthem Jana Gana Mana are to be played during a state ceremony attended by the Governor of the State. The plea also seeks to ensure that Tamil Nadu's state song "Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu" is played at the commencement of the ceremony.
When the plea came up for hearing before the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the bench noted that the 5th respondent in the case was the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Governor. The bench wondered how the petitioner could seek relief against the Governor and how the Governor could represent the State in the plea. Noting that the Governor was not a necessary party in the case, the court directed the registry to delete the Governor from the list of respondents in the plea.