Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125 NOMINAL INDEX V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
NOMINAL INDEX
V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
REPORT
Case Title: V Varun Kumar and Others v. P Thamizhselvan and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 114
The Madras High Court recently lamented the misuse of the benevolent provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice M Dhandpani observed that the Act was a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interests of the members belonging to the communities and should not be used as a tool against the citizens of the country.
The Court added that before entertaining complaints under the Act, the SC/ST Commission should ensure that no innocent common man is unnecessarily dragged to go through the rigours of the Act.
Case Title: P Vanajakshi v. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 115
The Madras High Court recently noted that one person cannot claim two dearness allowances.
Justice C Kumarappan made the observations while dealing with the plea of a woman who claimed dearness allowance on her regular pension in addition to the dearness allowance on her family pension. The court noted that the principle behind Rule 20A(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Provident Fund was to ensure that a person cannot have two dearness allowances.
Case Title: M Senthilmurugan v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 116
The Madras High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his wife over their strained relationship.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that merely because the couple had a strained relationship and the husband was a drunkard, it could not lead to a presumption that he killed the wife, in the absence of any evidence to prove the last seen theory or any other evidence.
Case Title: Mohammed Rafiq and Others v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 117
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a group of men for allegedly attempting to damage public property using combustible material near the Central Bus Stand, Udhagamandalam.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that when there was nothing to show that the men had lit the combustible material, it could not be said that mischief had been committed.
Case Title: AC Murugesan and Others v District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 118
The Madras High Court has held that continued residence in the forest area and reliance on the forest, by doing cultivation for livelihood, are essential for being declared as a forest dweller under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender noted that the object of the act was to protect the livelihood of forest dwellers. The court thus dismissed the petitions filed by a group of persons claiming “forest dweller” status. The court noted that the parties had not produced anything to show that they were entirely dependent on the forest for their survival.
Madras High Court Stays Contempt Proceedings Over Thiruparankundram Deepam Row
Case Title: KJ Praveenkumar IAS v Rama Ravikumar and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 119
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (17th March), stayed the contempt proceedings pending before a single judge of the Madurai bench over non-compliance of its order directing the lighting of Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon (stone pillar) atop the Thiruparankundram Hills.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has issued the interim stay on an appeal filed by the State authorities. The Court also remarked that such issues could have been avoided if the temple management itself had taken steps to light the lamp as per the order.
If Wife Elopes With Another Man, Habeas Corpus Petition No Remedy: Madras High Court
Case Title: S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
The Madras High Court recently observed that no remedy under a habeas corpus petition would lie for the disappearance of a wife, who actually eloped with another man.
The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking to produce the body of his wife and two kids, aged 3.5 years and 2 years, who were missing since March 6, 2026.
While the court noted that it could not do anything about the eloping of the wife and the husband had to work out his remedies against her before the appropriate court, the court expressed concern regarding the two kids.
Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging Provisions Of Centre's New Law Replacing MGNREGA
Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v. The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 121
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (18th March) closed a public interest litigation challenging the provisions of the Centre's new law replacing the MGREGA, the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act [VB-G-RAM G].
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the case after the petitioner informed the bench that he would withdraw the case.
The plea, filed by Advocate T Sivagnanasambandan, alleges that the provisions of the new Act, which is replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), are anti-federal and ultra vires to Article 245 and Article 246 of the Constitution.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea To Ban Pre-Poll Alliance Between Political Parties
Case Title: R Viswanathan @ MGR Viswanathan v. The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 122
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking directions to the Election Commission of India to ban pre-poll alliances between political parties.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that a direction could not be issued to the ECI to restrict parties from forming pre-poll alliances. The bench also noted that its Madurai bench had earlier dismissed a similar plea seeking identical relief. Thus, finding no merits, the court dismissed the plea.
The petitioner, R Viswanathan, argued that pre-poll alliances were often formed, not in the interest of democracy but with selfish motives to defeat a common political enemy. It has been submitted that pre-poll alliances are formed to gain political power by hook or crook without any ideology, and the parties are not bothered about the welfare of the people.
Case Title: Vaiko and Others v. The Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 123
The Madras High Court has issued extensive directions for the removal of Seemai Karuvelam (Prosopis Juliflora) in the State including setting up of a special committee consisting of two retired judges of the Madras High Court (Justice A Selvam in the South and Justice V Bharathidasan in the North) to supervise the action taken by the District Collectors.
The specially constituted bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy lamented that even though 11 years had passed since the first order of the court for removing Seemai Karuvelam, no substantial progress had been made. In such a situation, the court said it was left with only two options – either to initiate contempt against the officers or to issue further directions. Since the first option would not yield the desired result of removing the invasive species, the court decided to go ahead with the latter.
Case Title: S Kumarasamy v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 124
The Madras High Court recently lamented that instead of focusing on real and tangible things in life, people are focusing on non-existent things like caste, which do not have any existence than in the minds of people.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while noting that the state authorities in Ramanathapuram District had denied permission for installing a statue of freedom fighter Veerapandiya Kattabomman on the ground that the people were seeking the erection of a statue for caste consolidation
The court noted that everyone had duty under constitution to create a casteless egalitarian society which cannot be forgotten and when the authorities had passed this order keeping in mind this duty, it cannot be interfered with.
“Not A Shortcut”: Madras High Court Cautions Against Routine Use Of Detention Orders
Case Title: R Vembu v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 125
The Madras High Court recently observed that the detention law cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal law procedure.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal added that the authorities can not resort to passing detention orders in every case of murder. The court added that instructions should be given to the Government to ensure that detention orders are not passed in a mechanical manner in all cases involving a solitary incident, which could be dealt with under the normal criminal law. The court added that if such cases are found in the future, costs would be imposed on the same.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Boney Kapoor And Daughters Move Madras High Court To Reject Plaint Claiming Sridevi's Property
Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others
Case No: CRP 227 of 2026
Film Producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor, have approached the Madras High Court against an order of the Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, refusing to reject a plaint filed in connection with the late actor Sridevi's property near the East Coast Road.
When the plea came up before Justice TV Thamilselvi on Monday (16 March), the court decided to take up the matter for final disposal on March 26, 2026 and extended the interim order staying the trial in the case.
The case before the Chengalpattu court was filed by MC Sivakami, her sister MC Natarajan, and their mother Chandrabhanu, claiming a share in the land and seeking to declare 4 sale deeds, through which Sridevi and her sister had acquired the 4.7-acre property, as null and void. It was claimed that the sale deeds were fraudulent and that they had a share in the property since it belonged to their paternal grandfather.
Case Title: Shanmugam v. State
Case No: Crl MP 102095 of 2026 [Filing No]
An application has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to recall an order quashing a FIR lodged against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) Aadhav Arjuna for his social media posts, allegedly inciting violence. The application has been filed by Shanmugam, who had originally filed the complaint based on which the FIR was registered.
When the case came up before Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, the court noted that the application was maintainable and directed the registry to number the plea.
For context, Arjuna has been accused of inciting violence through his social media post and for allegedly calling for a revolution similar to that initiated by Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka, in the State. Following this, an FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) [imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023.
Case Title: Rama Ravikumar v. KJ Praveenkumar and Others
Case No: CONT P(MD) Nos.3594 & 3657 of 2025 in W.P.(MD)Nos.32317 & 33197 of 2025
The Madras High Court has criticised the State government for seeking a stay of the contempt proceedings initiated against its officials in connection with the Thiruparankundram Karthigai Deepam lightning case.
Justice GR Swaminathan noted that the State had previously sought an adjournment in the contempt plea, stating that it would deliberate on the Court's suggestion to name 5 persons who could go and light a ceremonial lamp in compliance with its earlier order. The Court added that the State had taken advantage of this window to get an order of stay.
While the Court recognised that the State had a right to avail legal remedies, the judge remarked that it was taken for a ride.