Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508 NOMINAL INDEX K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 Ankur Kumar Jain v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497 Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498 State of Tamil Nadu v Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499 G v B,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
NOMINAL INDEX
K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
Ankur Kumar Jain v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
State of Tamil Nadu v Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
G v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
K Ponmudy v Assistant Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
K v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 502
ECR P Saravanan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 503
C. V. Shanmugam v P. Kamalakkanna, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504
Milany Ponnuram v Udhayanidhi Stalin, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 505
K. Sivakumar v Rajendran R and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506
V. G. Jagadeesan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 507
G Devarajan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
REPORT
Case Title: K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496
A plea calling for registration of an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister Marie Wilson for his statement admitting that he had given a bribe to the previous regime in connection with his private educational institution has been withdrawn from the Madras High Court.
The petitioner, on Monday (October 12), requested the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan to permit him to withdraw the plea. The court accepted the request, and the plea was withdrawn.
As per the petitioner, on August 24, 2026, the Minister had openly made a statement on the assembly floor, confessing on record that he had paid a bribe to a public official/former Minister to secure official recognition and permission for his private educational institution.
Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497
The Madras High Court recently observed that failure to furnish grounds of arrest in writing would be viewed as a dereliction of duty on the part of the arresting officer, and he shall be liable to departmental proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497]
Justice N Ramesh directed the Director General of Police (Law & Order) to issue instructions to every police unit in the State.
The court reiterated that not supplying the grounds of arrest would vitiate the arrest and there would be no option but to release the accused, no matter how grave the offence is. The court added that in many serious cases, the accused are released not because the case is weak but because the police did not do what should be done at the time of arrest.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (October 13), upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu Speaker, accepting the resignation of MLAs who quit All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party immediately after elections and joined TVK. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignation of the MLAs was genuine and the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed enquiry into the resignation process. The court made it clear that the resignaion of the MLAs would not bar the disqualification proceedings and directed the Speaker to complete the disqualification proceedings within 2 months.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499
The Madras High Court recently held that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is not exempt under the Right to Information Act from sharing information relating to corruption and human rights violations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499]
Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar noted that though the DVAC was exempted from the RTI Act, by way of a Government Order issued as per Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Act itself made it clear that the information relating to corruption and human rights violations would not be excluded.
The court also rejected the argument of the DVAC, claiming that details regarding the enquiry were confidential information as per Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual. The court remarked that the department could not create an exemption which did not exist under the Act. The court added that the confidentiality aspect could be looked into to decide whether particular information was supplied in confidence, but could not be used as a justification to withhold the entire records.
Spouses Can't Be Compelled To Continue Broken Marriage For Welfare Of Children: Madras High Court
Case Title: G v B
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500
The Madras High Court recently held that a couple should not be forced to continue a matrimonial relationship, which has become unworkable, merely for the welfare of the child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500]
Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed that the court was expected to balance the welfare of the child with the realities of the matrimonial relationship. The court added that when the relationship between the parents loses cordiality and turns into constant discord, the four walls of the home cease to become a home for the child.
The court also remarked that though the child may have all material facilities, if he has to witness his parents standing as strangers under the same roof, he would not get a peaceful life. The court added that the child often becomes a silent sufferer in such a broken emotional environment.
Case Title: K Ponmudy v Assistant Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501
The Madras High Court on Tuesday (October 13), quashed a case against former Minister K Ponmudi under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act pending before the Special Court in Chennai. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the predicate offence, based on which the Enforcement Directorate had registered the case under the PMLA, had ended in the acquittal of Ponmudi and others. Thus, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the bench noted that the enforcement proceedings against Ponmudi and others could not continue.
Case Title: K v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 502
The Madras High Court recently refused a man's plea for a DNA test, noting that he had filed the same 10 years after the wife filed a Domestic Violence case, without providing any reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay.
Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that the husband had sought a DNA test only to humiliate and defame his wife in the society, and to protract the maintenance case filed by the wife. Thus, the court deemed it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs 50,000 on the husband, to be payable to the wife.
Case Title: ECR P Saravanan v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 503
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), quashed one of the FIRs registered against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA from Sholinganallur constituency, P Saravanan alias ECR Saravanan, in connection with erecting unauthorised banners.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that no public structure had been destroyed by Saravanan's acts and thus continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of law.
Case Title: C. V. Shanmugam v P. Kamalakkanna
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504
The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the victory of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) MLA CV Shanmugam from Mailam constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the primary allegation made against Shanmugan was that he was involved in distributing money to the voters, which constituted a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. The court observed that the allegations were vague, bald and bereft of material facts.
Case Title: Milany Ponnuram v Udhayanidhi Stalin
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 505
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), closed a plea with respect to the delay in numbering a complaint filed against the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, over alleged corrupt practice during the 2026 Assembly Elections.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan has closed the plea after taking note of a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate, informing that the complaint has been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice has been issued. The court had previously asked the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Georgetown, Chennai, to state how long it would take to number the criminal complaint.
Case Title: K. Sivakumar v Rajendran R and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506
The Madras High Court recently held that CM Vijay's appeal to children to persuade their parents to vote for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party would not amount to undue influence or corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act warranting a challenge to his victory. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506]
However, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the videos that were circulating online, which showed children asking their family members to vote for TVK, were in bad taste and reflected poor parenting. The court added that the issue of whether it could be a ground to set aside the election was a matter for a larger debate by the nation and the Parliament.
The court remarked that such persuasion by the children, even if taken to be true and correct, was not one which would sway the choice of the adult exercising his/her right to vote. The court added that even if the parents use the persuasion as an excuse to make a particular choice, it would be on their own volition and could not be said to be under undue influence.
Madras High Court Paves Way For RSS Route March, Asks State Not To Deny Permission In Future
Case Title: V. G. Jagadeesan v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 507
The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 16), paved the way for a route march by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to commemorate the founding day of the organisation.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after the Advocate General informed the court that the police would grant permission for the route march by Monday (October 19), considering the representation and other details provided by the organisers. The court made it clear that the route marches shall be held on October 25th and November 1st and asked the organisers to provide all necessary details.
The court also asked the Tamil Nadu police not to deny such permission in the future, considering the guidelines that have already been framed by the court. The court also asked the organisers to give applications in advance and directed the police not to sit on the applications and to grant approval as and when the applications are filed in the future.
Case Title: G Devarajan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508
The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 16), dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation to transfer the investigation in the POCSO case involving grantine baron R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a single judge had already dismissed a similar plea, taking note of the substantial progress made by the Special Investigation Team investigating the offence. The court noted that the petitioner had not projected any valid reason for transferring the probe. The court thus remarked that the plea was only filed to stall the proceedings and not with a bona fide cause.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: CTR Nirmal Kumar v Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Case Number: OSA No 180 & 183 of 2026
The Madras High Court has directed its registry not to number a defamation suit filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party against Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, till the court hears an appeal preferred by Nirmal Kumar against the order permitting DMK to sue them.
The party had moved the defamation suit alleging that the Ministers made statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumar took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the party, assuring the court that the party will not number the suit till the appeal is heard.
TVK MLA Saravanan Approaches Madras High Court Seeking To Quash FIR Over 'Unauthorised' Hoardings
Case Title: ECR P Saravanan v State
Case No: Crl MP 19611/2026 and Crl OP 63531/2026 (Filing Number)
Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA from Sholinganallur assembly constituency, Saravanan, also known as ECR Saravanan, has approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him over the erection of banners 'unauthorisedly'.
On Monday (October 12), Justice V Lakshminarayanan allowed an application by the MLA seeking to dispense with the production of the original FIR and directed the registry to number the plea for quashing the FIR.
Centre Notifies Appointment Of Two Judicial Officers As Additional Judges Of Madras High Court
The President has appointed two judicial officers - Dharmalingam Lingeswaran and Balathandayutham Karthikeyan as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court.
Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal posted on X (previously Twitter), as under:
In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, in consultation with Chief Justice of India, the President is pleased to appoint the following 02 Judicial Officers as Additional Judges of the Madras High Court:-
1. Shri Dharmalingam Lingeswaran
2. Shri Balathandayutham Karthikeyan
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 14) orally questioned why the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was being denied permission for route march in Tamil Nadu, when it was permitted to hold marches even in terrorist infested places like Jammu and Kashmir.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that the current state government had been denying permission for every procession, be it Dravidar Kazhagam or RSS, forcing them to come to court and take up unnecessary litigation.
The court also orally said that the State was seeing the citizens as its enemies and denying permission for protests. The court also remarked that no matter which government was coming up, RSS was being denied permission for its march.
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), observed that the State police could not deny permission for a route march by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) citing the existence of a mosque on the proposed route, and not give muslims a bad name.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan made the oral remark while hearing a plea by the State Secretary of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), North Tamil Nadu, against the denial of permission for a route march proposed by the party.
On perusing the reasons pointed out by the State for rejecting permission, the court noted that one of the reasons cited was the existence of mosques and Eidgah on the route of the procession. Taking strong objection to this, the court remarked that the State should not portray Muslims in a bad light, as if the minorities would be objecting to the procession.
Case Title: S v S
Case No: CRP No. 3799 of 2026
After taking note of a large number of matrimonial disputes involving parties who got married during the Covid-19 period, the Madras High Court has called for statewide data in an attempt to resolve the disputes amicably.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that once such data is placed before the court, it could seek assistance from experienced lawyers and come up with a different kind of solution in all the cases. The court also noted that such a step will have a positive impact and help the families in resolving the dispute amicably.
The court came up with the idea after noting that in the past 3 months, almost every matrimonial case that came to the court was with respect to marriages that took place between 2019 to 2022, when the world was facing the Corona pandemic. The court also noted that in 95% of the cases, the parties had hardly lived together for 6 to 9 months and in some cases, only for 3 months.
Human Faeces Found In School's Water Tank: Madras High Court Calls For Status Report By State
Case Title: T Balakrishnan v The District Collector and Others
Case No: WP (MD) 30135 of 2026
The Madras High Court has asked the state to explain the action taken in connection with an incident of human faeces being dumped inside a water storage tank used by Manoor Panchayat Union Primary School in Dindigul District
The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice R Poornima has called for a status report from the authorities and adjourned the hearing by two weeks.
The issue relates to an incident that occurred in the Manoor Panchayat Union Primary School, situated near Palani in Dindigul District. On October 5, 2026, upon noticing that water was not flowing from the tap, the school staff members inspected the water storage tank and found human faeces inside the tank.
As per reports, initially an attempt was made to conceal the incident by immediately cleaning the tank, instead of promptly reporting it to the competent authorities and ensuring preservation of evidence. The incident came to light only after the parents of the students confronted the school staff.