Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495 NOMINAL INDEX RS Tamilvendan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478 N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479 V Thangavel v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 480 Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 481 G v A, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
NOMINAL INDEX
RS Tamilvendan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
V Thangavel v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
G v A, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
R Annadurai v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
Thangamani Rajamanikkam v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
The Secretary to Government and Others v R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
Sujan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
Bank of Baroda v Kondepati Ganga Prasad and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
Ala Alagappan v The Additional Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
V Durairaj v The Joint Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
Visalatchi v The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
BS v PS, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
Baskaran Thanthai Periyar Nagar v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
N. Vikraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
The District Collector, Madurai District & Others Vs. P. Pushpam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
REPORT
Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5) wondered how public money was wasted by the construction of a new secretariat building. The court also questioned what powers it had to issue orders against the construction of the government building. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the oral observations while hearing a plea by a lawyer, Tamilvendan, challenging the decision of the Tamil Nadu Government to construct a new secretariat building in Chennai's Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate).
Case Title: N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
A bus operator from Erode has withdrawn her plea before the Madras High Court challenging the Tamil Nadu Government's “Vetri Payanam” Scheme, giving free travel to women in state-owned buses across the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479]
The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination to entertain the same. The bench wondered how the petitioner, who had an operating licence only in a particular area, could challenge a scheme which was applicable to the entire state.
The court also noted that the petitioner had challenged the announcement made by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay without challenging the Government Order in connection with the scheme. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the present plea and work out her remedy as per law.
Case Title: V Thangavel v The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court has suggested amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act to ensure that properties, which are believed to have been obtained through corrupt means, are mandatorily attached and are not dealt with during the pendency of proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478]
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that such a strong and deterrent measure will put fear in the minds of officials, who otherwise enjoy the fruits of corruption.
The court noted that some special legislations like the NDPS Act, Mines and Minerals Act etc mandated attachment of properties to prohibit offenders from holding the illegally acquired properties. The court added that corruption should be treated even more seriously and thus attachment of properties was necessary to combat the vice of corruption.
Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5) allowed an application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking leave of the court to sue Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, and others for alleged defamatory statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani.
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed the application, thereby permitting the party to sue the Ministers and others for defamation. The court had reserved orders on the application on October 1.
Case Title: G v A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman, who was not aware of the husband's earlier marriage and was made to believe that the first wife had been divorced, would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS).
The court thus ordered maintenance to be paid to a woman, who was argued to be the husband's second wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482]
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the term “wife” has a wider connotation with respect to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court added that the parties are presumed to be married if the man and the woman were in a relationship for a very long time.
Case Title: R Annadurai v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
In the Rithanya dowry death case, the Madras High Court has directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Avinashi Sub Division – Tiruppur District) to hand over 100 sovereigns of gold and a Volvo car, which were given as dowry to be handed over to Rithanya's father. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483]
27-year-old Rithanya had committed suicide in July last year, over alleged dowry harassment. She had married Kavin Kumar three months before her death and had allegedly complained to her parents that her husband and his family had been harassing her mentally and physically over dowry and other issues. The final report has been filed for offences under Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS along with Sections 3(1) of and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Title: Thangamani Rajamanikkam v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
The Madras High Court recently directed the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to decide issues with respect to the conduct of the temple festival in Arulmigu Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Temple, without reference to caste. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the issues with respect to who was entitled to conduct the festival and what was the nature of the festival were matters which fell under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
The court also noted that two groups were fighting with respect to the conduct of the temple festival, over a non-existent concept of caste. The court thus directed the Joint Commissioner to consider the issue on merits.
Case Title: Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
The Madras High Court recently upheld the rejection of an application filed by a charitable trust seeking registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), holding that the trust had failed to correctly disclose its religious character. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485]
A Division Bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed that the trust itself claimed to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy and that Zen Buddhism is a variant of the Mahayana Buddhist school.
It held that the trust was therefore required to correctly identify itself as a religious organisation while seeking FCRA registration.
While examining the nature of the trust, the Court also observed that “unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive.”
Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Others v R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court recently set aside an order granting Rs 3 Lakh compensation to a woman who underwent fourth pregnancy as a result of a failed tubectomy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486]
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the risk of failure of tubectomy was a medically recognised fact and even as per the Standards and Quality Assurance in Sterilization Services, about 5 in 1000 sterilizations carried a small risk of failure. The court added that whether there was medical negligence or not had to be tested based on evidence, and a writ court could not decide such issues while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sujan v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a Bangladeshi national for violating the provisions of the Foreigners Act and entering India without a valid passport, visa, or travel documents. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487]
Though Justice Nirmal Kumar upheld the sentence of 2 years and a fine of Rs 10,000, the court noted that the individuals had migrated to India in search of employment and were unable to pay the fine amount. Thus, considering the pecuniary circumstances, the court was inclined to reduce the default sentence (for non-payment of fine) from one month to one week.
The court further directed the concerned authorities to make sure that the parties, along with their children are deported to Bangladesh within a period of 30 days after they have undergone the period of sentence.
Case Title: Bank of Baroda v Kondepati Ganga Prasad and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488
The Madras High Court recently held that a loan defaulter cannot be forced to stay within the country to ensure repayment of loan, when there is no fraud on the part of the defaulter. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488].
Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that a person taking a loan is not mortgaging his constitutional rights with the bank and thus cannot be prevented from travel.
The court added that a person's travel should not be interfered with by issuing a Look Out Circular merely on a letter written to the Bureau of Immigration. The court remarked that the letter by the bank is not a law and if a nationalised bank is permitted to do such an act, every private creditor or NBFC will start approaching the police for issuing LOC to prevent debtors from going abroad.
Case Title: Ala Alagappan v The Additional Director
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489
The Madras High Court recently remarked that the Enforcement Directorate should use its powers and resources for cases involving public money, public interest, corruption and scams of national consequences, instead of disputes between private individuals. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489]
Justice N Ramesh commented that the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are not meant to be used in property dispute between private individuals, for which the ordinary criminal and civil law already provides relief.
Case Title: V Durairaj v The Joint Commissioner and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 490
The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to conduct an enquiry into the unauthorised sale of 200 buffaloes that were donated by devotees to the Arulmigu Pathrakaliamman Temple in Salem District.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that there was a severe lapse of supervision by the Executive Officer who was expected to supervise the temple. The court added that while displacement of 1 or 2 buffaloes might go unnoticed, in the present case, the sale was of over 200 buffaloes. The court thus suspected negligence on the part of the EO to safeguard the livestock.
Case Title: Visalatchi v The Commissioner of Police and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491
The Madras High Court recently permitted the widow of the prime accused in the murder of BSP leader Armstrong to hold a customary observance in connection with the first death anniversary of the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that even if the deceased was one of the blackest rogues of the 21st century, his family still had the right to follow customary observance, in line with their beliefs. The court added that even if the accused was dead, his family was still alive and should be permitted to perform observance as per their beliefs.
Case Title: BS v PS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 492
The Madras High Court recently gave full custody of a minor girl to the mother working in Canada, after taking note of the father's matrimonial ad, where he had mentioned himself as a divorcee with no kids.
Justice PB Balaji remarked that the advertisement clearly shows that the father had disowned his minor child and was in no way competent to be a guardian or act in the best interest of the child.
Case Title: Baskaran Thanthai Periyar Nagar v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493
The Madras High Court recently directed the trial court to consider the bail pleas of two men who had damaged a pipe that was illegally installed by a private entity, without any permission from any authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493]
The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the villagers had damaged an illegal installation when the administration had failed to take action. While the court admitted that the action of the villagers could not be condoned, it wondered how the villagers could be blamed for acting on their own when the official machinery failed to take action.
Case Title: N. Vikraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that no private educational institution or private employer in Tamil Nadu can mandatorily collect caste or community details in application forms. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494]
Case Title: The District Collector, Madurai District & Others Vs. P. Pushpam
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R.Sakthivel held that a Noon Meal Organizer is a public servant holding a substantive post under the State Government, and in the absence of statutory service rules, service conditions can be governed by administrative orders issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495]
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Tulir Charitable Trust v The State
Case No: WP Crl 2564 of 2026
The Republic TV, represented by Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, on Tuesday (October 6) told the Madras High Court that an informed and educated debate on what happened in the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani will only further the cause of justice.
The submissions were made before Justice V Lakshminarayanan, urging the court to modify an earlier interim order restraining media houses from publicising any videos or discussing the facts of the case.
Jethmalani submitted that it was offensive to suggest that the channels were discussing the issue only for publicity. He added that in foreign countries, it was normal for news channels to expose child assault cases, and in our country also, the press should have the freedom to discuss such issues.
Case Title: CTR Nirmal Kumar v Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others
Case NO: OSA 180/2026
Tamil Nadu Electricity Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar has approached the Madras High Court challenging a single judge's order, permitting the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party to sue him for defamatory statements linking the party to the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani.
The impugned order also permitted DMK to sue TVK Minister Aadhav Arjuna.
Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumar admitted the appeal and adjourned the hearing to October 13.
It may be noted that on October 5, 2026, Justice Goviindarajan Thilakavadi had allowed an application filed by the party seeking leave of court to sue the two Ministers, IT Wing of the TVK party, Google LLC (which owns and operates YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc (which owns and operates Instagram), and X Corp (which owns and operates X, formerly Twitter).
Case Title: K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another
Case No: WP 40565 of 2026
An advocate has moved the Madras High Court seeking directions to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to immediately register 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.
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.
The petitioner submitted that payment of bribe to public servants is a cognisable offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He added that the provisions give immunity to a bribe giver only if that person was compelled to give a bribe and reports the matter to the law enforcement agency or investigating authority within a statutory period of 7 days from the date of giving undue advantage.
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Dinesh
Case No: OA 909 of 2026 in ELP 50 of 2026
The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (October 7) questioned whether non-disclosure of assets worth Rs 30 crore by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay in his election nomination papers would amount to corrupt practice when he had otherwise declared around Rs 600 crore worth of assets.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan put forward the question while hearing an application filed by the Chief Minister seeking to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur Assembly constituency.
The judge orally remarked that Vijay, who was a popular actor, would have had a lot of properties in his name. The judge also remarked that it was not likely that Vijay himself had prepared the list of his assets and said that the same might have been done by a Chartered Accountant. The judge then wondered if the failure on the part of the CA to declare some assets would be a ground to challenge the election itself.
Case Title: C Joseph Vijay v S Dinesh
Case No: OA 909 of 2026 in ELP 50 of 2026
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on an application filed by Tamil Nadu CM Joseph Vijay seeking to reject an election petition filed by a voter challenging his victory from the Perambur assembly constituency.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan reserved the orders after hearing Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (for the CM) and Advocate Ashok (for the voter). The judge asked the counsels involved to submit their written submissions by Wednesday (October 14)
The voter, S Dinesh had approached the High Court alleging that there were several discrepancies in the financial disclosures made by Vijay in his election affidavit.
Case Title: Saju Alex v The Zonal Officer
Case No: WP No 7504 of 2026
The Madras High Court recently remarked that while the Greater Chennai Corporation was swift to take action against persons who fail to pay tax money, such alacrity was not being shown in providing commensurate services. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 492]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Rajesh Vivekananthan made the observations while dealing with a plea to remove encroachment and to stop illegal parking of vehicles in a residential road.
The court added that the collection of property tax, water tax, etc by the Corporation comes with a duty to provide services to the people residing in the city. The court remarked that though the charges were being increased periodically, the Corporation's services was grossly inadequate.