Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 12 - January 18, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 NOMINAL INDEX Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28 Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29 Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30 S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31 P Murugan v. The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 32 SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33 Krishnakumari v. The State of Tamilnadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 34 K Kandasamy v. P Natarajan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 35 Thangapandiyan v. Jayalakshmi and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 36 REPORT Madras High Court Passes John Doe Order Protecting Actor Kamal Haasan's Personality Rights, But No Bar On Satire Case Title: Kamal Haasan v Neeyevidai Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 27 The Madras High Court on Monday (January 12) passed a John Doe order protecting personality rights of renowned actor and Rajya Sabha MP Kamal Haasan from illegal use of his image and likeness as well as commercial merchandising. The court however did not restrain permissible forms of creative expression such as satire and caricature. The court said that since a john doe has been added as second respondent to the plaint, the plaintiff was directed to give public notice regarding the court order in English and Tamil newspapers. Madras High Court Asks India Research Watch To First Notify Saveetha Institute Of Medical Science Before Publishing Articles About Them Case Title: Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. India Research Watch and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 28 The Madras High Court has restrained India Research Watch from publishing articles in connection with the functioning of Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences without prior intimation to the Institute. Justice P Dhanabal directed Research Watch to issue notice to the institute regarding queries or gist of articles to the email Id of the institute and await a response for 72 hours. The court added that if any response is received within 72 hours, the organisation could publish the statement along with the response. However, if no such response was received, the organisation could publish the article. The court, however, added that the organisation was at liberty to make statements based on public records available, including court records. Madras High Court Restrains Internet Service Providers From Illegally Streaming “Happy Patel” Movie Case Title: Aamir Khan Productions Pvt Ltd v BSNL and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 29 The Madras High Court has restrained more than 30 internet service providers from illegally streaming the upcoming Hindi movie “Happy Patel Khatarnak Jasoos” produced by Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy issued the interim direction in a plea moved by the production company. Noting that the irreparable injury would be caused unless interim relief is granted, the court ordered accordingly. At the same time, the court noted that due to the expansive nature of the relief claimed, it was possible that legitimate business interests might also get affected. In such cases, the court directed the production house to indemnify the parties concerned. Section 35 BNSS Does Not Empower Police To Summon Or Question Individuals In Absence Of Registered Case: Madras High Court Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 30 The Madras High Court recently observed that the police does not have power to summon or question a person without a registered case. Justice Sunder Mohan thus set aside a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police calling upon a journalist seeking explanation for an article published by him allegedly containing defamatory statement against the police. The judge noted that the Section only gave powers to the police to arrest a person without warrant and did not give powers to question a person without even registering a case. Can Persons With Pending Criminal Cases Be Enrolled As Advocates? Madras High Court Larger Bench To Decide Case Title: S. Bhaskarapandian v. The Chairman / Secretary, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 31 The Madras High Court has referred to its larger bench the question whether a person who has criminal cases pending against him, can be enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council. The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Kalaimathi decided to refer the issue to a larger bench after noting that Advocates Act did not empower the High Courts to impose conditions for enrolment. The court also noted that...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 12 - January 18, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags