Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 NOMINAL INDEX M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 R v P, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138 M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
NOMINAL INDEX
M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
R v P, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
Eswaran v The State and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
L Murugan v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
REPORT
Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135
The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf.
Justice PB Balaji observed,
“At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”.
Liquor Consumption Is Personal Choice, But Shops Causing Nuisance Must Be Checked: Madras High Court
Case Title: T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
Setting aside a recreational club's alcohol license, the Madras High Court observed that while consuming alcohol is the personal choice of a person, no nuisance should be caused to the persons living in a locality by granting license to operate liquor shop.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman noted that while granting license, the authority should conduct inquiry and find that three primary conditions are satisfied, i.e, (i) the local needs justify the grant of license, (ii) the public interest does not suffer by grant of license, and (iii) the privilege (of license) is not misused. Noting that the authority had not considered these aspects, the court set aside the license.
Case Title: R v P
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court recently confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing a divorce petition filed by a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that bickering between husband and wife was common, especially in the initial days of marriage. The court added that if such bickering was projected as cruelty, most marriages would have to be dissolved. The court highlighted that a stable relationship required patience and adjustments.
Case Title: KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (1st April), dismissed a plea seeking to prevent illegal distribution of cash either directly or through tokens, and other inducements to voters at the time of elections.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the submissions made by the Election Commission of India and the State Government that necessary steps were being taken to curb the issue. Remarking that the petition was just a publicity interest litigation, the court dismissed the same.
Case Title: M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a law student for making a Facebook post to break and remove a statue of EVR Periyar installed in front of the Srirangam temple.
Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the student had only expressed his opinion that such a statue would hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. The court noted that such an expression of opinion had not caused any untoward incident. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the criminal case.
Case Title: Eswaran v The State and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140
A full bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Governor is bound by the decision of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to the remission and premature release of a convict prisoner.
Answering a reference made to it, the bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan and Justice Sunder Mohan held that the governor is bound by the decision of the council of ministers, whether he likes it or not and under no circumstances can the Governor take a different view.
The full bench held that in the position of law was laid down by the Constitution bench in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India, wherein it was categorically held that the Governor was a formal head and was incapable of acting except on and according to the advice of the Council of Ministers, regardless of whether the Governor likes the advice or not.
State Appointing Law Officers Only On Basis Of Political Allegiance, Not Merit: Madras High Court
Case Title: Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 141
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the State government was appointing Government pleaders, public prosecutors, and law officers only based on their political allegiance and not on the basis of merit.
Justice B Pugalendhi noted that in some cases, the only qualification of the law officers appointed by the State was their involvement in menial political activities, like sticking posters for the party. The court added that this practice struck at the very root of professional standards that was expected by the officers.
The court added that even after appointment, many such law officers did not take efforts to develop the necessary skills that was needed in the profession, which was making the litigants suffer and compromising the administration of justice.
Case Title: L Murugan v. The State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142
The Madras High Court has quashed two cases against Union Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs L Murugan for alleged bribery in connection with the 2024 Parliamentary Election.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira quashed the two cases on Thursday (2nd April).
The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the Deputy Tahsildar based on a report of the Village Administrative Officer, alleging that Murugan had engaged in election-related misconduct while contesting in the 2024 Parliamentary Elections from the Nilgiris Constituency. It was argued that during his visit to the Hariyudaiyan Temple and the Kadanadu Community Centre, he had gathered local residents, causing unlawful assembly and unauthorised election campaigning before 100 persons. Though the FIR was first registered for offences under Section 171E of the IPC, it was later changed to Sections 143 and 171H of the IPC.
Case Title: Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143
The Madras High Court has stayed a Government Order issued by the State of Tamil Nadu allowing police to exercise powers of the Judicial Magistrate.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman has stayed the Government Order issued by the Home (Courts – VIA) Department) on December 4, 2025, under Section 15 of the BNSS.
The court ordered an interim stay on a petition filed by Nallathambi of Madurai. Nallathambi challenging the constitutional validity of the GO.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer
Case No: WP 13425 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court to direct all Returning Officers to ensure that only those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism are permitted to contest in elections from constituencies earmarked for the Scheduled Caste community.
The plea has been filed by Arjunan Sampath, founding president of the Indu Makkal Katchi (IMK).
In his plea, Sampath has submitted that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, issued under Article 341(1) of the Constitution, only persons professing the Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist religion should be deemed to be members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Case Title: G Square Realtors Private Limited v Shankar @ Savukku Shankar
Case No: Cont P 659 of 2024
The Madras High Court has initiated suo motu contempt proceeding against Youtuber Felix Gerald for allegedly violating an earlier order of the court, by which it restricted Youtuber Shankar @ Savukku Shankar from making allegations against G Square Realtors without notice.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu opined that Gerald, who had interviewed Shankar post the court order, had also committed contempt of court. The court thus ordered notice to Gerald and called upon him to explain as to why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of court.