Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211 NOMINAL INDEX Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204 P v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205 KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206 Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207 Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
P v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
B Gurunathan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
REPORT
Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against VCK Chief Thol Thirumavalavan
Case Title: Dr.Thol.Thirumavalavan v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 204
The Madras High Court has quashed an alleged hate speech case registered against Thol Thirumavalavan, chief of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) party.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira noted that although the complaint was lodged in 2019, the final report was filed only in 2025, contrary to the three-year time frame prescribed by law. The court also noted that the prior sanction was not obtained as mandated under Section 196(1A) of the CrPC.
The court thus opined that the proceedings had to be quashed and ordered accordingly.
Case Title: P v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 205
The Madras High Court has recently held that a wife going to her mother's house for delivery and remaining there after the birth of the child cannot be seen as an act of desertion when the husband was not present in the country during the time.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar also noted that the husband had made baseless allegations against the wife, saying that she was in close contact with a male person. The court noted that such acts would drive the wife to grieve over the allegation and remain at her mother's place, and the same could not be seen as desertion.
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 206
The Madras High Court in an interim order on Tuesday (May 12) restrained TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi–who won from Tiruppattur constituency, from participating in any floor motion in 17th Legislative assembly including the confidence motion or floor test.
The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar passed the interim order in a plea filed by former Minister R Periakaruppan alleging that one postal vote of No. 185 Tiruppattur constituency in Sivagangai District, (from where he contested as DMK candidate), which was in his favour, had been wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency of Tiruppattur District.
The bench however made it clear that the order "should not be treated as one setting aside his winning or one confirming it". It said that a "strong prima facie case" has been made out by Periakaruppan.
Case Title: Jalani v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 207
The Madras High Court recently refused ordinary leave to a convict for undergoing fertility treatment.
Dismissing a petition filed by the wife of the convict, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that the court could not merely act upon the right of the convict's wife to have a child but also had to consider the interest of the child, which will have to carry the stigma throughout its life.
Noting that it cannot turn a blind eye to the reality and had to consider the welfare of the child, the court said that it was worried about the consequences exerted on the child by society. The court also pointed out that the reformative theory was focused on the convict and did not deal with his/her desire to have a child. The court underlined that the convict or his wife did not have any right to place a child in an unfortunate position for the rest of its life.
Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Attempt To Murder Case
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 208
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an attempt to murder case.
Granting him conditional bail, Justice Victoria Gowri observed that a person's liberty cannot be taken lightly just because the allegations are grave. The court said that when the presence of an accused can be secured through conditions, continued incarceration was not warranted.
As such the court granted bail to Shankar upon him executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of Madhavaram Judicial Magistrate. The court has also asked Shankar to appear before the police daily and to co-operate with the investigation.
The case was registered against Shankar for allegedly attacking a Sub-Inspector of Police while Shankar was being brought to Puzhal prison from Oncole (Andhra Pradesh), after being arrested in connection with an alleged cheating and extortion case.
Case Title: B Gurunathan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 209
While granting bail to a father who was accused of allegedly sexually assaulting his daughter, the Madras High Court recently observed that there was an alarming trend where officials attached to the Child Welfare Committee, shelter homes, etc., were insisting children to make sexual abuse allegations against their fathers.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan noted that in many cases, the children might be approaching these authorities only to ventilate their grievances relating to the domestic discord happening between their parents. However, instead of addressing the issue appropriately, officers were compelling victims to make sexual misconduct accusations against their own family members.
Case Title: Durgadevi v Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 210
The Madras High Court has recently directed the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths to positively consider a woman's plea to add the name of her foster parents in the birth certificate without removing the name of her biological parents.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy highlighted that the right to construct one's own identity regarding gender, familial, and societal context was a part of right to privacy. The court noted that the woman was not seeking to remove her biological parent's name from the birth certificate but only to add the name of her foster parents. The court thus noted that the woman was within her right to construct her identity in the society, which was part of her fundamental right.
Case Title: Selvakumar v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 211
The Madras High Court has reiterated that grama natham lands (village land) that are owned by the Government should be utilised for public purposes by constructing dwelling houses and should not be left to be encroached by greedy men.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender added that the Government was empowered to regulate the natham lands and utilise them in terms of the Revenue Standing Orders for the landless or homeless.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman Resigns
Tamil Nadu Advocate General PS Raman has resigned from his post. Raman was appointed as the State's AG on 12th January, 2024, following the resignation of senior advocate R Shunmugasundaram.
Raman's resignation comes in light of the formation of a new government in the State. It may be noted that actor Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party had secured the highest number of votes in the recently concluded Legislative Assembly elections and has formed the government in the state.
Appointment Of Vijay's Astrologer As Officer On Special Duty Challenged In Madras High Court
A lawyer on Wednesday (13th May) made an urgent mentioning before the Madras High Court, challenging the appointment of Astrologer Ricky Rathan Pandit Vettrivel as an Officer of Special Duty by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay.
When advocate Krishnamurthy made a mention before the vacation bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar, the bench asked the lawyer what the urgency was in the case. The counsel informed the bench that the appointment was made against the statues and without making any official announcement beforehand.
The lawyer thus sought permission of the Court to file a plea against the appointment, subject to the government passing the floor test, which is scheduled for today. The court permitted the same and asked him to file a petition. It said that if such a petition is filed, it could be taken up for hearing tomorrow.
Case Title: R Sudha v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 19498 of 2026
Congress MP R Sudha has approached the Madras High Court challenging the enrollment of AG Perarivalan, convict in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, as an Advocate.
The vacation bench of Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar has admitted the plea and ordered notice to the Union Home Department, Legal Affairs Department, Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Central Bureau of Investigation and AG Perarivalan.
The case has been adjourned to June 9.
Sudha has approached the court seeking to declare Section 24A of the Advocates Act as unconstitutional so far as it permits persons convicted and sentenced with 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.
Senior Advocate Vijay Narayanan Appointed New Advocate General Of Tamil Nadu
Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan has been appointed as the new Advocate General of Tamil Nadu.
A notification issued by the Public (Law Officers) Department read as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 165(1) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby appoints Thiru. Vijay Narayan, Senior Advocate, as the Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, with effect from the date on which he assumes charge of the office vice Thiru. P.S.Raman, who has resigned,".