LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: September 14 to September 20, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454 NOMINAL INDEX Balaji v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 Abu @ Syed Abuthagir and Others v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 444 Rajalakshmi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445 KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446 Udhayakumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447 EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
NOMINAL INDEX
Balaji v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
Abu @ Syed Abuthagir and Others v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
Rajalakshmi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
Udhayakumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
Suraj Goyal v CM Goyal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
A v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
Raja SM v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
A Jegannathan v The Chairman, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
Dhilipkumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
REPORT
Case Title: Balaji v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443
The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case lodged against a man who was accused of pelting stones at a dog that bit him. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that though the man was accused of pelting stones, there was "no evidence" to show that the dog had suffered injury. On the other hand, the man had lodged a complaint to substantiate that he was bitten by the dog.
The court thus noted that before registering the case, the police should have obtained prior permission from the jurisdictional court, which the police failed to do. The court thus held that the case was nothing but an abuse of process of law and was inclined to quash it.
Case Title: Abu @ Syed Abuthagir and Others v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 444
The Madras High Court recently held that the provision of witness protection under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is aimed at protecting the witness from any threat and should not be used as a sword in the prosecution's hand to curtail the accused's right to cross-examination.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan added that whenever the prosecution files an application for witness protection, the court should not issue directions mechanically. The judge added that the court was to first examine the gravity of the threat, whether life of the witness was in danger and whether the threat would only continue till he deposes before the court, and then take a decision.
Case Title: Rajalakshmi v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445
The Madras High Court recently held that a woman who was unaware of her husband's first marriage could not be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS. The court also noted that the second wife will not fall within the definition of “relative of husband” and cannot be prosecuted under Section 85 of BNS (corresponding to Section 498A of the IPC).[2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445]
Justice N Ramesh held that the provision is confined to a person who is related to the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. The court held that the second wife, who was unaware of the husband's existing first marriage, would not be a husband's relative. The court added that in such cases, both the women were deceived by the husband and are not accused and victim.
Case Title: KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446
The Madras High Court recently rejected an election petition challenging the victory of TVK's Sengottaiyan from the Gobichettipalayam constituency, noting that the expiry of the license of the notary who attested the affidavit filed along with the nomination proper was not a ground to challenge elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446]
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that merely alleging that Form 26 was attested by a Notary whose certificate had expired could not constitute a complete cause of action under the Representation of People Act, without establishing that the violation materially affected the result of the election.
High Speed Alone Not Enough To Prove Rash, Negligent Driving: Madras High Court
Case Title: Udhayakumar v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447
The Madras High Court recently held that driving at high speed alone is not enough to prove that the driving was rash or negligent to prove offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447]
Justice G Arul Murugan observed that criminality could not be presumed and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by TVK's Arul Arumugam challenging the victory of DMK's EV Velu from the Tiruvannamalai Assembly Constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that no clear and triable issue was disclosed in the plea and was inclined to allow Velu's plea to reject the election petition.
Case Title: Suraj Goyal v CM Goyal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court recently held that a son failing to support his father after obtaining his self-acquired property by itself was not a ground to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC when the father is not living in vagrancy or destitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449]
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that though one might sympathise with the father for the broken relationship with the children, he could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC unless the conditions were satisfied. The court said that no amount to money could compensate for the lack of moral or family support that a person is entitled to in told age.
'Low Moral Fibre': Madras High Court Denies Mother Custody Of Minor Children
Case Title: A v B
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
The Madras High Court recently denied custody of two minor children to their mother after noting that the woman had a low moral fibre and her company will be detrimental to the well being of the children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450]
The bench of Justice PT Asha and Justice N Mala noted that in custody cases, well being of the minor child had to be given priority and such well-being was not limited to physical well-being but also moral and religious.
The court remarked that in our culture, mother was placed above god but in the present case, the mother had forgotten her status and duty as a mother, to inculcate good behaviour to the children right from the time she breastfeeds them.
Case Title: Raja SM v State and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking a CBI probe in connection with the theft of two idols in the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451]
The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel noted that the petitioner should have first filed a proper complaint before the appropriate investigating agency and then approach the court if no action had been taken. The court remarked that though the petitioner had sent a letter to the Chief Minister's cell, it was not enough to advance the petitioner's case.
Case Title: A Jegannathan v The Chairman
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the State Level Scrutiny Committee's finding that the community certificate held by a Chennai Port Trust employee was bogus, 40 years after his appointment.
Though the employee had alleged that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the proceedings had started immediately after his appointment, way back in 1983, and the petitioner had been dragging on the issue by raising one or the other hyper-technical plea.
The court noted that it would be an abuse of the process of law if the matter is remanded back even after it was abundantly clear that the employee had secured the post falsely.
The court reiterated that fraud is anathema to every principle of law, and obtaining reservation benefits based on such fake documents is fraud on the Constitution. The court held that technical grounds and repeated remands could not aid such fraud.
Case Title: Dhilipkumar v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
The Madras High Court recently held that an arrest or seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is vitiated if the accused is not informed about the quantity of contraband seized from him or the provisions under which he is charged. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453]
Justice N Ramesh thus granted bail to an accused, accused of carrying 25kg of Ganja. The court noted that the accused was not informed of the quantity of Ganja seized from him at the time of arrest. The court remarked that when the quantity was not informed, there is a real and demonstrable prejudice, as the accused would not know whether he is answering a charge which carried a punishment of 6 months or 10 years.
Case Title: M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court recently held that fair complexion of a person, tall height, good physique, and proficiency in Tamil and English alone are not enough to prove that they practice Christianity, when no evaluation in this regard is conducted by the anthropologist. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of the District Level Vigilance Committee holding that the community certificate held by a man was not genuine and that he did not belong to the Adi Dravidar Community, a Scheduled Caste community.
The court noted that the reasoning given by the committee did not have any relevance and was unsupported by any evaluation by the Anthropologist.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: K Suthan v The Union of India and Others
Case No: WP 37274 of 2026
The Madras High Court has asked the Election Commission of India to consider the peculiar circumstance of an MLA resigning from his post immediately after elections and contesting in the by-elections from another party.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Krishnaswamy Govindarajan was hearing a petition seeking to create a mechanism for ensuring financial accountability of elected representatives who voluntarily and prematurely resign from their seats without legally recognized compelling circumstances.
The court noted that the current legal framework did not address the situation and called upon the ECI to consider framing guidelines. The court also orally remarked that such conduct of resigning immediately after elections should not be a mockery of democracy.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v S Vimala IPS
Case No: Cont P 2012 of 2025
The Madras High Court has asked the Central Government to process the files for sanction to prosecute two IAS officers in connection with the tender irregularities scam within 2 months.
When Justice Anand Venkatesh was informed that the files were being processed and had been sent to the Central Vigilance Commission for perusal, the court also called for an affidavit detailing the steps taken from November 2025 with respect to the grant of sanction for prosecuting the IAS officers.