Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134 NOMINAL INDEX Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127 M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128 A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129 S. Selvaganesh...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
NOMINAL INDEX
Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
REPORT
Case Title: Anant Mandgi v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 126
The Madras High Court has recently observed that obtaining an environment clearance certificate is not compulsory during the acquisition of land for projects for National Highways.
As per the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated September 14, 2016, obtaining an environment clearance was mandatory for all projects and activities in the nature of expansion of National Highways greater than 100 kms.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the clearance was mandatory for all construction activities. The court noted that the construction would happen only after the land is entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India and not at the time of acquisition. The court added that at the time of land acquisition, the land would only be vested with the Government. The court thus concluded that the clearance was not necessary at the time of acquisition but during the commencement of development activities.
Case Title: MM Ramesh v. MS Manikavasagam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 127
The Madras High Court has held that provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 would be applicable only to property transfers made after the commencement of the Act.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made it clear that the act cannot be given a retrospective application. The bench noted that Section 23 of the Act clearly states that the property transfer will be void in certain circumstances, which is transferred by any senior citizen after the commencement of the Act.
The bench also noted that a full bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Subhashini v. District Collector had held that the provision of the Act was intended to be only prospective in nature. The court also noted that the Delhi High Court, in the case of Charanjit Singh Ahluwalia vs. Unionof India, had concurred with this view, and the challenge against the same was also dismissed. Thus, the court concluded that the act was not retrospective.
Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal by Director Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company Photon Factory, challenging a single judge's order directing them to repay Rs. 4.25 Crore along with 12% interest to production company RS Infotainment for failure to make a movie as agreed between the parties.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge.
Case Title: A Kamala v. Inspector of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 129
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24) dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamala, the mother of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar, challenging his solitary confinement in prison during his incarceration in December 2025 in connection with an alleged extortion case.
Significant to note that Shankar is currently out on interim bail in the matter.
The court also disposed of a petition filed by her seeking specialised medical treatment for him in prison.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman also dismissed as infructuous an application filed by Shankar seeking review of the additional bail conditions imposed on him.
Though the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that the interim bail granted to Shankar would expire on 25th March (tomorrow), and he may be directed to surrender before the police, the court made it clear that it could not issue such directions, and it was for the police to take steps against him if he did not surrender.
Case Title: S. Selvaganesh v The Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 130
The Madras High Court recently directed the Dindigul Taluk Police Station to register an FIR against a man, for allegedly forging the signature of his adopted mother in an attempt to loot her properties.
The bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice R Poornima also dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by the man against alleged illegal detention of the mother by a care home, after noting that the mother was willingly staying at the Home, after facing life threat at the hand of the adopted son. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the man.
Case Title: XXX v The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 131
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (24 March), directed the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to conduct a day-to-day trial in connection with the sexual assault of a 10-year-old in Chennai's Anna Nagar area.
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman directed the court to expedite the trial and dispose of it at the earliest. The court also ordered adequate police protection for the victim and her family for a fair trial.
Case Title: S Prabhu v. The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a man's plea seeking permission to conduct daily protests till the end of World War.
Justice Victoria Gowri also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the man for filing frivolous petitions for his eccentric needs. The court noted that constitutional rights were meant to enlarge participation and could not be used to assert a right in total disregard of public order.
The court also criticised the manner in which the man had refused to hold the protest at an alternative site suggested by the State administration, near statues of Dr. BR Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar Statue, solely because he saw them as icons of casteism. The court noted that both the leaders were historical figures and the petitioner could not be justified in making such remarks against them.
Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 133
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (26 March), temporarily stayed all further proceedings in a case registered against former Tamil Nadu Minister K Ponmudi for his comments against Saivism, Vaishnavism and women.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira allowed a plea filed by the former minister seeking a stay of the proceedings till the disposal of a plea filed by him challenging the Magistrate's order, taking cognisance of the complaint filed by BJP's Uma Anandan against Ponmudi. The court also allowed a plea dispensing with his further appearance before the Magistrate.
Ponmudi had filed the plea against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, through which the Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed by a BJP Councillor, Uma Anandan, against a speech made by Ponmudi.
Case Title: C Selvakumar v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 134
The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over the body of 26-year-old Akash, who died due to alleged custodial violence in Manamadurai, being used as a "means of protest".
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman said that providing a decent burial is also a facet of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that neither the state nor the officials were preventing the conduct of the last rites, and it was for the family members of the deceased to proceed with his rites.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Lawyer Urges Madras High Court To Ban 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' Film Till State Assembly Elections
A lawyer on Monday (23rd March) made an urgent mention before the Madras High Court to ban the movie "Dhurandhar: The Revenge" in the state of Tamil Nadu in view of the upcoming assembly elections in the State.
Legislative Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in Tamil Nadu on 23 April, 2026.
Advocate Sheela told the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan that the movie revolved around political issues and contained biased political commentary. The lawyer thus requested that the movie not be permitted to be screened in the State when the Model Code of Conduct was in force for the upcoming elections. She added that the movie can be broadcast in the State once the elections are over.
The bench, however, noted that no plea had been filed yet for the relief sought. It also noted that the movie had already been released, but directed the lawyer to file an appropriate plea and then mention before the bench.
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Making Three Additional Judges Of Madras High Court Permanent
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended making Justice R Poornima, Justice M Jothiraman, and Justice AD Maria Clete as permanent judges of the Madras High Court.
In a statement issued on March 24th, 2026, the collegium said,
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 24th March, 2026 has approved the proposal for appointment of the following Additional Judges as Permanent Judges in the Madras High Court:
(i) Ms. Justice R. Poornima,
(ii) Shri Justice M. Jothiraman, and
(iii) Dr. (Smt.) Justice Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete
Plea In Madras High Court Seeks Rescheduling Of IPL Matches In Chennai Due To Assembly Polls
A man has approached the Madras High Court seeking to reschedule the dates for IPL matches that are proposed to be held in the Chepauk Stadium in Chennai considering the upcoming assembly elections in the State.
In the alternative, the petitioner T Prabhakaran has sought court direction to ensure that the Model Code of Conduct is strictly complied with during the match and no political symbol, logo, etc are publicly displayed during the match.
The petitioner stated that during election time, the Police Department, which is tasked with the duty to maintain law and order in the State, would be working round the clock and given election duty in addition to their regular duty.
It has been submitted that in such circumstances, if the IPL matches are held on April 3 and April 11 at the Chepauk stadium as per the schedule, the police will face an additional task of providing security for the match, security for the players and maintaining law and order around the stadium.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Rajya Sabha MP R Girirajan has moved the Madras High Court, calling for action by Enforcement Directorate against BJP's State President Nainar Nagendran in connection with a 'cash for vote' case.
Action has also been sought against Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary for Tamil Nadu BJP.
It may be noted that on April 7, an amount of Rs. 3.99 crore was seized from three train passengers at the Tambaram Railway Station and these persons were found to be close associates of Nainar Nagendran. Girirajan argued that the three accused persons had admitted that they were carrying the money to distribute among voters on behalf of Nagendran for the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections.
Girirajan argued that the offences alleged constitute scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and despite the existence of clear materials indicating the generation and use of proceeds of crime, the ED had failed to register ECIR and initiate proceedings under the PMLA.