Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 NOMINAL INDEX Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198 P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199 Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
NOMINAL INDEX
Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
REPORT
Case Title: Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197
The Madras High Court has recently set aside the detention order passed against a YouTuber, Varaaki, noting that the State had unnecessarily targeted him.
In doing so, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan also directed the state to pay Rs. 50,000 to him for his illegal detention.
It may be noted that in December 2025, the court had released Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, on personal bond. During that time, the court had remarked that the state should not routinely approve the detention orders and that while detaining a person, there should be application of mind. The bench had also remarked that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue State for appropriate relief including claiming damages.
Case Title: Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198
The Madras High Court has ordered the Indian High Commission in Colombo to consider granting emergency visa to a Sri Lankan national to come to India to aid his ailing mother.
Justice M Dhandapani noted that there were no adverse materials against the person, and in such circumstances, his continued blacklisting would be disproportionate. The court also noted that the mother was a senior citizen who was in need of immediate care. Thus, citing humanitarian grounds, the court was inclined to grant him limited relief.
Case Title: P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
The Madras High Court recently criticised the acts of certain persons who threw footwear (chappals) at devotees participating in the procession of Lord Kallazhar Temple during the Chithirai festival in Madurai.
Justice Victoria Gowri said that such acts could not be brushed aside as stray acts of hooliganism, as such acts not only affected the public order but also offended constitutional morality. The court also added that India's secular spirit did not require an indifference to religion but required the protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance.
The court observed that the principle of fraternity embodied in the preamble of the Constitution obligated the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions were celebrated in peace, dignity, and mutual respect. The court also noted that though maintenance of public order was the duty of the executive, when disruption was apprehended, judicial directions were warranted.
Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200
The Madras High Court has allowed a plea filed by filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor seeking to reject a plaint filed against them in connection with the late actor Sridevi's property near the East Coast Road.
Noting that the cause of action raised against the trio is not sustainable, Justice TV Tamilselvi remarked that the “vexatious” claim was made only to grab the property by abusing the process of law, and the same was not permissible under law. The court thus noted that the trial judge's order, refusing to reject the plaint, was liable to be set aside.
Case Title: S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201
The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against a group of lawyers for disrupting the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No. V at Madurai.
Noting that there was no justification to quash the proceedings, Justice Victoria Gowri highlighted the importance of respect between the bar and the bench. The court remarked that the dignity of one sustains the honour of the other. The court thus highlighted that the law expected both to remain within their constitutional and professional discipline.
The court also recorded appreciation for the young judicial officer for choosing to uphold the majesty of the law and the dignity of the judicial office, though attempts were made to compromise the institutional authority.
Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of 23 District Judges In 2013
Case Title: N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the appointment of 23 candidates to the post of District Judges (Entry Level) in 2013.
The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar noted that some of the petitioners had challenged the selection process for deciding the ranking of candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the viva voce, and thus argued that the Selection Commission was vested with excessive powers.
Rejecting these arguments, the bench observed that once a Selection Committee is formed to assess the performance of the candidates, their discretion cannot be interfered with unless serious and valid concerns are raised. In the present case, the court noted that there was no justification to the grievances raised by the petitioners, which were vague and general. The court also added that after participating in the selection process, the candidates could not challenge the same without concrete reasons.
Case Title: S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203
The Madras High Court recently observed that corrective measures taken by a teacher cannot be criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Justice Victoria Gowri remarked that while offences under the POCSO Act have to be dealt with seriousness, the sanctity of the Act should also be maintained, which is to protect the genuine victims. The court noted that if a teacher performing a legitimate disciplinary function is exposed to criminal prosecution on exaggerated allegations, the Act would be misused and it would corrode the educational institution.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: M.Rajkumar v. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others
Case No: W.P.SR.No.49938 of 2026
The Madras High Court has directed its Registry to number and list a plea seeking probe into alleged suppression of income by TVK chief and Chief Minister-elect Vijay.
The plea has also sought for registration of an FIR against Vijay and a probe by competent authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Noting that the Registry had not numbered the petition over doubts on its maintainability, the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said that deciding the issue of maintainability is a judicial function and the registry could not raise such objections.
Case Title: B Ravi Raja v The Bar Council of India and Others
Case No: WP 18354 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the enrolment of AG Perarivalan— one of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case— as an advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The vacation bench of Justice S Sounthar and Justice PB Balaji has issued notice to the respondents – Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chairman of the Enrolment Committee, and Perarivalan, returnable by 4 weeks.
Case Title: S Devadoss Gandhi Wilson v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others
Case No: WP 18318 of 2026
A plea has been filed in the Madras High Court alleging poor implementation of the postal ballot facility and the lack of adequate transport services during the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections which were held on April.
The plea seeks direction to the authorities to ensure complete adherence of postal ballot voting of all voters either on election duty or otherwise unable to cast their vote. It may be noted that the results of the elections were declared on May 4, with Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) receiving the highest votes.
The vacation bench of Justice S Sounthar and Justice PB Balaji has issued notice to the Chief Election Commissioner, State Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu, TN Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (Transport Department), Director General of Police, Transport Commissioner, Additional Transport Commissioner (Revenue/Enforcement Department), and the Vigilance Commissioner and adjourned the plea to June.
Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Savukku Shankar's Bail Plea In Attempt To Murder Case
Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl OP 11627 of 2026
The Madras High Court has reserved orders on a bail plea filed by YouTuber journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar in connection with an attempt to murder case registered against him by the state police.
Justice Victoria Gowri reserved orders after hearing counsel for Shankar and the State.
Shankar has also filed a petition seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in connection with the alleged crime. Though the counsel urged the court to grant the interim relief of stay, the court was not inclined to stay the criminal case today.
Jana Nayagan Movie Leak: Accused Persons Approach Madras High Court Seeking Bail
Case Title: Rajesh v The State
Case No: Crl OP 11588 of 2026
Six persons accused in connection with the online leak of the upcoming Tamil movie “Jana Nayagan” have approached the Madras High Court seeking bail. It may be noted that on April 30, the Principal District and Sessions Court in Chennai had rejected bail to the accused persons.
The petitions came up for hearing before Justice Victoria Gowri today. When the court was informed that an anticipatory bail plea in connection with the same case was dismissed by the regular court, the court initially decided to post all the bail pleas before the same judge for consideration. However, upon the insistence by the counsels for the petitioners, the court decided to post the plea next week.
The trial court had dismissed the bail petitions, noting the serious nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation. The court remarked that a deep and thorough investigation was required in the case to unearth the entire network of conspiracy.
Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others
Case No: WP 19287 of 2026
In a special Sunday hearing today, the Madras High Court sought the Election Commission's response to DMK leader and former Minister for Co-operatives KR Periakaruppan's plea alleging that one postal ballot of No 158 Tiruppattur constituency, from where he contested in the 2026 assembly elections, mistakenly ended up at No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency, due to both constituencies sharing the same name.
The vacation bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthil Kumar has asked the election authority as to what is the procedure or course available in such a situation.