Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 NOMINAL INDEX P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 M v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215 Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
NOMINAL INDEX
P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
M v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
Rajesh v State and other connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
REPORT
Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212
The Madras High Court recently stayed a notice of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tamil Nadu directing removing/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter.
Noting that the notice did not specify the reasons for blocking, Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar held that when state restricts speech, the same should be through reasons and not by cryptic command. The bench remarked that political opinions cannot be removed merely because they are sharp, inconvenient, satirical, dissenting or unpalatable.
The court added that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution didn't just protest polite and agreeable speech but also protected criticism, dissent, satire, political disagreements and public debate. The court added that a democracy cannot take criticism as disorder, satire as sedition, dissent as danger or opinion as offence.
Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213
The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to ensure that the schools and public buildings, which are usually notified as polling booths for elections, should be made wheelchair accessible by constructing permanent ramps.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the ECI to take steps to make sure that its website was made easily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.
Case Title: M v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214
The Madras High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of adultery by his wife, stating that though there was no direct evidence of sexual intercourse, there was evidence regarding close proximity of the wife with another married man.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy, and it is very difficult to produce direct evidence of sexual intercourse to prove adultery.
Case Title: S v K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215
While granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's act of marrying off their daughter without informing him would cause him mental agony and constitute mental cruelty.
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar held that as a parent, the husband would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain, and suffering, which could never be compensated.
The court also noted that the husband's later conduct, of preventing the wife from entering the house, was also due to the mental scar that he had suffered.
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216
The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an alleged extortion case.
Justice R Sakthivel granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.
The case is registered under Sections 296(b), 351(2), 308(3), 131, 115(2), 109, 353 (1)(b), and 61 (2)(b) of the BNS over allegations of Shankar demanding a sum of Rs 10,00,000 for removing an allegedly defamatory post.
Taking note of the fact that the chargesheet had been filed and taken on file, the court was inclined to grant bail and ordered accordingly. The court has however, asked Shankar to appear before the Adambakkam police daily.
Case Title: P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the recent press note of the Tamil Nadu Government regarding its decision to close 717 TASMAC liquor shops in the State, which are located within 500 meters of places of worship, educational institutions, and bus stands.
Calling it a good decision, Justice GR Swaminathan said that such policy decisions of the government could not be challenged by way of a writ petition by men who had leased their land for the setting up of TASMAC shops.
The court also recorded the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who informed the court that TASMAC would reimburse land owners, where the shops had been closed in furtherance of the policy decision.
Case Title: Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May), closed a habeas corpus plea challenging the detention of YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan took note of the Government Order passed by the Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department revoking his detention.
Thus, noting that the plea has become infructuous, the court closed the plea.
Meanwhile, another plea filed by Shankar's nephew seeking to take him to a speciality hospital for comprehensive cardiac evaluation and for giving him necessary treatment under the supervision of qualified cardiologists has been posted to next week.
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219
The Madras High Court on Thursday (21st May) dismissed a plea seeking to ban or regulate the recently released Tamil movie "Karuppu" starring Suriya and Trisha and directed by RJ Balaji. The plea had alleged that the movie portrayed the Indian judiciary in bad light.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that anyone could say anything in a free country like India. The court further orally remarked that the portrayal in the movie was, in fact, a matter for introspection.
Case Title: Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220
The Madras High Court has held that a mother should not be made to undergo DNA test to prove her maternity while donating kidney to her child.
Justice GR Swaminathan thus directed the Authorisation Committee of the Directorate of Medical Education and Research to permit a mother to donate one of her kidneys to her son, who was suffering from systemic hypertension chronic kidney disease stage-V and needed urgent kidney transplantation.
The court remarked that when the donor herself was saying that the recipient was her son, it was not understandable on why the request was ignored.
Case Title: R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221
The Madras High Court recently refused to permit the installation of CCTV cameras near a village lake to prevent activities like illegal fishing, earth mining, etc near it.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the village lake was a traditional resource used by the villagers, who used it for multiple purposes like bathing, swimming, and leisure activities.
The court added that these were semi-private spaces of the villagers, and CCTV surveillance in such places would be an excessive intrusion. The court also said that the state should not indulge in such intrusion without a strong justification.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Madras High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Of Nine Accused Persons
Case Title: Rajesh v State and other connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222
The Madras High Court has dismissed the bail pleas of nine accused persons in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan” starring Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay.
Justice R Sakthivel dismissed the bail pleas of the accused persons – Rajesh, Selvam, Prashanth, Rajini, Srinath @ Sriram, Sanjay, Bala @ Balakrishnan, Manigandan, Ruthran. On April 30, the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai had dismissed the bail pleas of the accused.
Case Title: Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223
The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to political commentator and scientist Dr V Ponraj in a case related to alleged defamatory statements against women supporters of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.
Justice R Sakthivel was inclined to grant anticipatory bail after noting that Ponraj had deep rots in the society and was not likely to abscond. Thus, noting that a custodial interrogation might not be necessary in the case, the court granted bail. However, the court has asked Ponraj to appear before the Cuddalore Police once every week and to appear and sign before the CCB Cyber Crime Wing Chennai twice every week.
While the court refrained from commenting on Ponraj's intention while making the statement, it said that Ponraj, who claimed to be a respectable person in society, should have been careful during a public interview, understanding the potential impact of his words and how it would be received by the public.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the names of nine judicial officers and ten advocates to be appointed as judges of the Madras High Court, including the present Registrar General of the Madras High Court.
In its statement, the collegium said that it had approved the names of the judicial officers and advocates in a meeting held on May 18. The names considered were proposed on November 4, November 21, December 7, and December 10 last year.
Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu
Case No: WP 18454 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking direction to the State of Tamil Nadu to file a curative petition in the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Dashwanth, the sole accused in the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in Chennai in 2017.
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan has impleaded the Director General of Police and the concerned Inspector of Police in the matter. The court also ordered the State to respond to the plea and adjourned the case by a week.
Case Title: Vasuki L v Election Commission of India
Case No: WP 20247 of 2026
The Madras High Court has sought response on a public interest litigation alleging corrupt practices by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections.
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally observed that while an election petition would be maintainable when a petition is filed against a particular candidate, in the present case, the allegations had been made against the political party itself.
Noting that the matter requires some investigation, the court issued notice to the Election Commission and the parties.
Case Title: K Punniyamoorthy v Escape Artists Motion Pictures and others
Case No: OSA (CAD) 63 of 2026
Creditors of actor-director Gautham Vasudev Menon have approached the Madras High Court against an order of a single judge paving the way for the release of the much-anticipated Tamil movie "Dhruva Natchathiram".
The vacation bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan has adjourned the case to June 2, after noting that the makers of the movie were planning to release the movie by June 18.
It may be noted that on April 30, 2026, a single judge of the High Court had permitted the release of the movie subject to certain conditions. The court had ordered that an escrow account be created in the name of Kondaduvom Entertainment, a company owned by Menon. The court has directed that all the transactions that are to be done before and after the movie's release be done through the account. An advocate commissioner has also been appointed to oversee the transactions in the account.
Plea In Madras High Court Seeks To Abolish Special & VIP Darshan In Temples
Case Title: P Chockalingam v. The Additional Secretary To Government
Case No: WP 20081 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking to abolish special darshan and VIP darshan at temples with exception for senior citizens, differently abled, artists for temple att, newly married couples, heads of State and constitutional authorities, pregnant women etc.
When the plea came up before the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan, the bench sought response from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Department and adjourned the plea to May 29.
The plea has been filed by P Chockalingam, current president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, North Tamil Nadu unit. Chockalingam states that he is an interested person in temple and would fall within the definition under Section 6(15)(b) of the HR&CE Act.