Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521NOMINAL INDEXKN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 513Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 514John Daniel v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516M...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521
NOMINAL INDEX
KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
John Daniel v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
M Anburaj v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
M Abishek v The Senior Superintendent, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
P Yuthe v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519
S Veeraraghavan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520
R Karthikeyan v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521
REPORT
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512
The Madras High Court, on Monday (October 26), dismissed a petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister KN Nehru, seeking review of an earlier order directing registration of FIR against him, based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a corruption case.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 513
The Madras High Court, on Monday (October 26), dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by former Education Minister Anbil Mahesh in connection with an alleged Rs 100 crore corruption case with respect to granting recognition to private schools.
Justice V Lakshminarayan dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 514
The Madras High Court has held that non-Hindus wearing religious markers cannot be permitted to enter the premises of Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu unless they affirm their reverence for the deity concerned through an undertaking in the format prescribed by the temple. The Court clarified that though Agamic injunctions restricting entry can no longer pass muster of the Constitution, those injunctions will hold good in respect of non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking.
A division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P. Murugan was hearing a writ petition filed seeking enquiry against the violators of the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners sought to prevent individuals bearing other religious symbols and non-adherents from entering restricted temple sanctums.
Case Title: John Daniel v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515
The Madras High Court recently held that a person's Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration can be cancelled if the person is involved in preaching or missionary activities without specifically seeking permission for the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant relief to a man who had come to India on OCI registration and was engaged in missionary activities.
The court noted that as per Section 7D of the Citizenship Act 1955, the government could cancel the registration if the cardholder had violated any provisions of the Act or any other law as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. The court also noted that as per S.O.1050(E) under Section 7B, the Government had made it mandatory to obtain prior permission to undertake any missionary, public, mountaineering, or journalistic activities.
Case Titile: S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516
The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 28) waived ₹1 lakh costs imposed on a lawyer for filing a plea seeking directions to make MLAs, who resigned soon after elections, reimburse their election expenses. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was inclined to review the order, with respect to the imposition of costs, taking note of the petitioner's submission that he had intended to withdraw the plea but could not make submissions properly since he was appearing through video conferencing. The court was also inclined to do away with the cost considering that the petitioner was an advocate practicing in the High Court.
Case Title: M Anburaj v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517
The Madras High Court has permitted a "unique" sit-in protest by villagers of Sitharkadu village in Mayiladuthurai District in a crematorium, against government inaction with respect to the pollution caused by a state-run rice mill. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the villagers had a right to protest, which was a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also observed that by indulging in the protest and bringing the pollution to the attention of the authorities, the villagers were implementing their fundamental duty under Articles 51A(a) & 51A(g) of the Constitution. The court remarked that such a protest could not be nipped in the bud.
Case Title: M Abishek v The Senior Superintendent
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 518
The Madras High Court recently directed the Railway Mail Service to furnish CCTV footage to a man, who was trying to find the identity of a mischief-monger who was sending him fabricated complaints in his missing father's name.
Justice GR Swaminathan observed that in this RTI age, clauses restricting the furnishing of materials could not be applied mechanically. The court added that in case of breach of right, a person is entitled to seek legal remedy. The court also added that if the identity of the person who is responsible for the breach could be established through materials available with the State, it is the State's duty to furnish those materials.
Case Title: P Yuthe v State and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519
The Madras High Court recently held that an investigation can be transferred even after filing of the final report if it is found that the investigation was not conducted properly. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519]
Justice S Alli observed that a chargesheet is only a product of the investigation and when the investigation itself was tainted, the chargesheet would be vitiated in law. The court added that such a tainted chargesheet violates the fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: S Veeraraghavan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the appointment of a pontiff in a temple is a purely religious function and not one having a secular or administrative character. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department did not have a right to appoint the temple pontiff or to approve the appointment.
The court added that a Jeeyar (spiritual leader who manages the temple) was only a servant of the diety and not an employee of the temple. The bench said that the Jeeyar would not come under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the department, unless in cases of power misuse.
Case Title: R Karthikeyan v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521
The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu not to permit any public meeting or march that aims to target, defame or intimidate a sitting judge. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that though citizens have a right to criticise a judgment, there should be a line between criticism and attacking the judge who authored it. The court made it clear that abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks against a judge would not come within the purview of free speech under the Constitution.
The court added that while it could not impose a blanket ban on public discussions regarding court orders as the same would infringe democratic expression, the State was under an obligation to ensure that such public gatherings are not used to threaten the integrity of the judicial insititution.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Varaaki v The State and Others
Case Number WP Crl 2605 of 2026
The Tamil Nadu police has informed the Madras High Court that the chargesheet in the first FIR that was registered in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani would be filed within 3 weeks, likely before November 10.
State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan made the submission before Justice V Lakshminarayanan when the latter enquired about the progress of the investigation being carried out by the Special Investigation Team.
The court was hearing a petition filed by investigative journalist Varaaki, in connection with the offence. Varaaki had initially approached the court seeking a CBI probe in the case. He had argued that high-ranking officials were involved in the case, and raised an apprehension that the SIT would not carry the investigation independently & effectively, necessitating a probe by an independent agency.
Case Title Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State
Case Number Crl OP 28363 of 2026
Senior Advocate P Wilson on Thursday (October 29) questioned the manner in which former Tamil Nadu Minister Anbil Mahesh was arrested from his office, asking whether the police were justified in arresting the former Minister without allowing time to go through the court order denying anticipatory bail.
Wilson made the submissions before the Madras High Court's Justice V Lakshminarayanan while the Court was hearing Mahesh's plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in connection with an alleged corruption case.
Case Title Ganesh Kumar v The Regional Passport Officer
Case Number WP 44399 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 30), issued notice on a plea seeking inquiry into the antecedents of Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) spokesperson and journalist Saurav Das.
The plea also seeks to block his social media handles for allegedly posting derogatory statements against the judiciary and judges of the Supreme Court.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice to the respondents, including the Regional Passport Officer (Chennai), the Chairperson (UIDAI), the Union Home Ministry, the Foreign Secretary (Ministry of External Affairs), the Secretary (Ministry of Law and Justice), the Secretary (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology), and Grievance Officers of X (previously Twitter) and Instagram.