LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: September 21 to September 27, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464 NOMINAL INDEX MRK Panneerselvam and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 A v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456 Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457 K Suthan v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458 M Pandiarajan...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
NOMINAL INDEX
MRK Panneerselvam and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
A v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
K Suthan v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
M Pandiarajan v Andal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
V v A, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
Annamalai K v Piyush V, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
R v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
Tulir Charitable Trust v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
REPORT
Madras High Court Refuses To Discharge Former Minister MRK Panneerselvam In Corruption Case
Case Title: MRK Panneerselvam and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 22), dismissed a plea filed by former Minister MRK Panneerselvam seeking discharge in a corruption case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455]
Justice V Lakshminarayanan dismissed the plea. The court had previously dispensed with Panneerselvam and his family's appearance before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.
Case Title: A v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court has permitted a Sri Lankan couple, settled in the United Kingdom to undergo In Vitro Fertilization treatment (IVF) in India even though the wife had crossed 50 years of age. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456]
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the upper age limit of 50 years under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act was fixed, considering the average life expectancy in India and the living conditions in the country.
The court noted that in the present case, the couple had come to India only for performing the medical procedure and intended to go back to their own country where they were going to bring up the child.
Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party challenging a part of the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on June 19, urging the Union Government to setup fresh tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, with respect to the Mekedatu Dam issue.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the party did not have any objection to the content of the resolution but had only objected to the manner in which the part, urging the Union Government to set up a tribunal, was introduced in the resolution.
The court noted that the challenge, in its core, was about the compliance of procedure as per Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. The court highlighted that Article 212 of the Constitution explicitly barred courts from interfering in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly merely on irregularity of procedure.
ALSO READ: MLAs Who Stay Silent During Assembly Vote Can't Challenge It Later: Madras High Court
Case Title: K Suthan v The Union of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to create a mechanism to ensure financial accountability of elected representatives who voluntarily and prematurely resign from their seats without legally recognized compelling circumstances [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458].
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the relief, seeking to introduce an Election Expenditure Security to recover the cost of a bye-election and to introduce a cooling-off period to prevent elected representatives who resign soon after the elections from contesting in the same constituency, could not be granted as it was for the legislature to bring a law to that effect.
The court noted that it could only interpret and enforce laws that exist or fill an interstitial gap by laying down guidelines until the Legislature steps in. The court added that it could not direct the legislature to pass laws on a particular subject. The court remarked that in the present plea, the petitioner was asking the court to lay down two new disqualifications in the electoral law, which was a matter of legislative policy and not judicial direction.
Case Title: M Pandiarajan v Andal and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
The Madras High Court recently held that exclusive possession of property by one co-owner and enjoyment of rent and income from the property would lead to a presumption of ouster with respect to the other co-owners. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459]
Justice G Jayachandran relied upon the decisions of a division bench of the Madras High Court in 1970 and the decision of the Privy Council in 1919 and held that if the co-owner has been in exclusive possession, it would be legitimate for the court to raise the presumption of ouster.
The court thus denied relief to two women in a suit for partition, claiming 1/3rd share each in the family properties. The court noted that the women had mentioned the properties incorrectly in the plaint, as some properties had been sold by their father during his lifetime. The court also noted that the parties had failed to implead the granddaughters (their brother's daughters) to whom some property had been divided. All these facts, in the court's opinion, added force to the plea of ouster by the brother.
Case Title: V v A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court recently observed that with women increasingly becoming career-oriented, marriage is not proving to be a “win-win proposition” for some career women, particularly those in the IT sector and other professions.
The Court noted that some women may view marriage as an impediment to their career prospects and choose not to marry.
A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi noted that while traditionally the husband was expected to provide financial resources and the wife took care of the domestic sphere, the roles have been changing over the last few decades, with women increasingly pursuing careers.
The Court observed that this change was “taking a toll in many relationships” and suggested that “if there can be house wives, there can be house husbands also”, adding, “Let this become a new normal.”
Case Title: Annamalai K v Piyush V
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 24) quashed a case against former IPS officer and President of We The Leaders Foundation, K Annamalai, for his alleged provocative speech involving freedom fighter Muthuramalinga Thevar.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that there was no material to show that Annamalai had intended to promote communal disharmony through his speech. The court also noted that there was no material to show that the speech was capable of inciting violence, promoting communal disharmony or disturbing public tranquillity. The court had previously stayed the trial in the case.
The court thus remarked that criminal process cannot be used to settle political scores or to stifle legitimate political dissent. In the present case, noting that there were no foundational materials, the court opined that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for purposes other than the bona fide enforcement of law.
Case Title: R v Inspector of Police
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
The Madras High Court recently upheld the life sentence imposed on a stepfather for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462]
The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B Murugesan rejected the step-father's evidence that there was no medical evidence to suggest sexual assault. The court observed that medical evidence was only supportive and not determinative. The court added that the absence of visible genital injury, the absence of spermatozoa on the dress of the victim, absence of a damaged hymen would not lead to an automatic conclusion of absence of sexual abuse or sexual assault.
Case Title: Tulir Charitable Trust v The State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
The Madras High Court, on Friday (September 25), restrained media outlets from publishing or broadcasting any video that touches upon the POCSO case registered against granite baron Veermani alias Gem Granite Veeramani.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that publishing such material prematurely would have a chilling effect on the other victim children, who might not be willing to come forward for the investigation.
The court asked the news channels and others to show sensitivity in the issue and hold debates without telecasting the explicit videos in connection with the case. The court remarked that some things were more important in life than TRP ratings.
Tender Eligibility Dispute Can't Be Treated As Fraud To Blacklist Contractor: Madras High Court
Case Title: Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court recently held that a company participating in a tender cannot be debarred or backlisted for a genuine misconception about the tender conditions. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464]
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that a misconception about the tender conditions cannot be inferred as a fraudulent practice, necessitating debarring or blacklisting. The court observed that black listing and debarring result in serious adverse consequences and must be resorted to sparingly and applied strictly.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v MK Stalin and Another
Case No: CS 200 of 2026
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party president and former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin has informed the Madras High Court that he cannot be held responsible for every post published by social media handles of various wings and functionaries of the party, merely because he was its head.
The argument was made by way of a counter in a defamation plea filed by Minister Aadhav Arjuna seeking to restrain Stalin and the DMK's IT Wing from making false and defamatory statements against him. The Minister has also sought damages of Rs, 1 Crore from Stalin and the party's IT Wing.
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the Government's decision to construct a new building complex in Pattinapakkam, Chennai, to serve as the Legislative Assembly and the Secretariat.
The petition has been filed by former Mylapore MLA Dha Velu from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party. Velu has challenged the Government Order issued by CM Vijay's government on September 8, giving “In-Principle Approval” for the construction of the building.
He further stated that the Go was issued without any traffic impact study, any environmental assessment, any social impact study or any comparison of alternative sites. It was submitted that the Foreshore Estate junction is already a congested bottleneck and the proposed construction in this area would generate more traffic with daily trips by thousands of employees, visitors, petitioners, legislators, officials, contractors, service vehicles, and convoy movements of the Ministers.
The Madras High Court, on Friday (September 25), said that it will hear the plea seeking a CBI probe into the POCSO case involving industrialist R Veeramani, widely known as Gem Granites Veeramani.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the statement on an urgent mention made by Senior Advocate NL Rajag, seeking a CBI probe into the case.
The senior counsel had requested the court to hear the case urgently, considering the sensitivity of the case, and submitted that objectionable videos in connection with the case were being broadcast by media outlets, in violation of the POCSO Act.
The bench asked the counsel to file the petition first and then mention for listing the case next week.
Madras High Court Issues Notice To ED On Former DMK Minister Ponmudi's Plea To Quash PMLA Case
Case Title: K Ponmudy v Assistant Director
Case No: Crl OP 27067 of 2026
The Madras High Court has issued notice on a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudy seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and pending before the Special Court in Chennai.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued notice to the ED, returnable in 2 weeks.
Ponmudi submitted that the ED had registered the enforcement case based on the FIR registered by the District Crime Branch, Villupuram. The predicate offence was registered against Ponmudi, his son, and others for offences under Sections 379, 406, 420, 120-B IPC, Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 36 (A) MMDR Rules.
Ponmudi argued that on April 2, 2026, the Sessions Court had acquitted him of all charges. Ponmudi thus submitted that as per settled proposition of law, once an accused was discharged/quashed/acquitted from the predicate offence, then the prosecution under the PMLA would no longer exist and was liable to be quashed. He thus argued that any incidental action by the ED would also become infructuous.