NOMINAL INDEX

G. V. Markandayan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

Udhayanidhi Stalin (MLA) v The State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

Sethuraj v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

GV Markandayan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

Ganga Neduncheliyan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

V Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

J Abdul Malik and Another v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

R Kanagavel Pandian v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

Ajith Kumar and Others v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

G Devarajan v The Principal Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

Sherip and Another v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

K.Balu v Chairman Bar Council of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

V. Muthupandi v Secretary to Government, Public Department & another,, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

SR Sekar v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

Nakkeeran Gopal v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

J.Ilayas & Anr. v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu and batch , 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

R Balaraman v Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization & others, 2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383

G. R. Thangavelu v G.R.Indira & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

Pradip C Nair and Another v The District Collector and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners v The Commissioner Greater Corporation of Chennai & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

S.D.S.Selvam v D. Ilavarasi & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Ramesh v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

M v Government of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

Paulpandiyan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

PV Selvakumar v The Speaker and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

Madhavan Ramanuja Dasan v The Commissioner, HR & CE, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

Ananya Radhakrishnan v The Join Secretary to Government of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

G Deva v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

R v J, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

M Chinnasamy v The Chairperson CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

Nambu Kaleeswaran and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

M Senthoorvelan v State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

R Ramaswamy v The Regional Passport Office and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

S. Srinivasan Menon v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

The District Collector and Others v G Manickam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

Mohamed Thalha v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

Vinoth Suriya Kumar v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

Sathiyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

K Backiyaraj v The Inspector Of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

REPORTS

Madras High Court Grants Bail To DMK MLA Markandayan Booked For Making 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Vijay

Case Title: G.V.Markandayan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

The Madras High Court has granted bail to Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan in a case registered against him for allegedly making derogatory and threatening remarks against CM Joseph Vijay.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan was inclined to grant bail on the condition that Markandayan files an affidavit undertaking that he will not make such remarks against the CM in the future. Markandayan has also been directed to appear before the investigating officer twice daily for a period of two weeks, except on days when the State Legislative Assembly is in session

Madras High Court Directs Udhayanidhi Stalin's Release Today After TN Govt Says It Only Wants To Question Him

Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin (MLA) v The State and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 4), asked the Tamil Nadu police to release the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, who has been arrested by the Thanjavur police in connection with a case for allegedly making derogatory statements against women.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan recorded the submission of Advocate General Vijay Narayan that though Udhayanidhi has been arrested and was being taken to Thanjavur, the State did not intend to remand him. The AG submitted that the State only intended to question Udhayanidhi and release him on station bail after the same.

The court recorded the submission and asked the police to release Udhayanidhi today itself, after interrogation, on station bail. The court also directed Udhayanidhi to cooperate with the investigation as and when necessary.

Madras High Court Stays TVK MLA Poaching Bid Case Probe, Seeks Response On Plea Seeking CBI Probe

Case Title: Sethuraj v The Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

The Madras High Court has stayed the investigation into alleged attempt to poach an MLA belonging to the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has ordered the interim stay on a plea seeking to transfer the investigation of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The court has ordered an interim stay till the next date of hearing.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sethuraj, an accused in the case, challenging the validity of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI to ensure a fair, independent and credible investigation.

Madras High Court Rejects ED's Plea To Transfer Former Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan's Disproportionate Assets Trial To PMLACourt

Case Title: The Assistant Director v The Additional Superintendent of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea by the Enforcement Directorate seeking to transfer trial in the disproportionate asset case against former Minister and sitting MLA Anitha Radhakrishnan, to the Special Court for PMLA cases in Madurai. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365]

ED had sought transfer of the case from Thoothukudi Sessions Court to the Special Court in Madurai, where it has filed a money laundering complaint based on the predicate offence.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the trial in the predicate offence, which was pending before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, had almost reached the final stage, and transferring the trial at such a stage would serve no legitimate purpose.

Madras High Court Rejects MLA Markandayan's Challenge To Remand In Case Over 'Threatening' Remarks Against CM Joseph Vijay

Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (August 5) dismissed a plea filed by Vilathikulam MLA GV Markandayan challenging his remand in a case registered over his alleged derogatory and threatening remarks against Chief Minister Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. With respect to a consequential prayer sought by the MLA seeking bail, the court noted that it had already granted bail to the MLA.

Use Of Cone Speakers Banned In Public & Religious Places: Madras High Court Reiterates, Asks State To Take Action Against Violators

Case Title: Ganga Neduncheliyan v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

The Madras High Court has reiterated that usage of cone speakers would be banned/restricted in public and religious places in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has asked the State government to ensure compliance with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules and to issue necessary guidelines to the concerned authorities and police officers to ensure compliance.

The court also asked the State to instruct authorities to take action against users of cone speakers/loudspeakers in public places and ensure that the usage of speakers is within the permitted parameters. The court added that appropriate action can be taken against violators according to the Rules and the loudspeakers and other instruments involved could be seized and confiscated immediately.

Madras High Court Relaxes Bail Condition On Senthil Balaji And Brother In ₹35 Crore MLA Poaching Case

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

The Madras High Court has relaxed the bail conditions imposed on Coimbatore South MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother RV Ashok Kumar in connection with a case lodged over allegations of offering a ₹35 crore bribe to a TVK MLA in an alleged attempt to influence his vote for Assembly Speaker. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368]

It may be noted that the court had granted anticipatory bail to Balaji and his brother on July 8, and had directed the duo to appear before the Inspector of Police, Triplicane Police Station daily at 10:30 am and 5:30 pm and asked them to cooperate with the investigation.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has now relaxed this bail condition after noting that a division bench of the High Court has stayed the investigation into the case. The court, however, made it clear that the duo can be summoned for investigation as and when necessary.

Govt Officials Giving False Information To Govt Lawyers Will Be Liable For Contempt: Madras High Court

Case Title: J Abdul Malik and Another v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

The Madras High Court recently observed that government officials who give false information to the counsels representing the government would be interfering with the administration of justice and would be liable for contempt of court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi directed the Registrar (Judicial) to send a communication to the Tahsildar, Marungapuri Taluk in Tiruchirappalli District, calling for an explanation for giving false information to the Government counsel, in connection with a case involving encroachment in a waterbody. Based on the report, the court will decide on taking up a suo motu case.

'Quest For Ratings Can't Justify Humiliating Others': Madras High Court Directs Channel To Air Public Apology For 'Trivialising' Freedom Fighter

Case Title: R Kanagavel Pandian v The Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

The Madras High Court recently stressed on the media's obligation to maintain intellectual honesty and social responsibility in its broadcasts. The court added that in the quest for ratings, entertainment channels cannot distort national history or humiliate those whose sufferings gave the citizens constitutional liberty. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 370]

Justice L Victoria Gowri held that a broadcaster has control over the content that is being disseminated. The court added that the broadcaster selects, schedules and approves the content before it is published and derives commercial benefit from its viewership. The court thus held that a broadcaster had a responsibility to review the content before publishing and cannot wriggle out of responsibility by saying that the program was created by an independent producer.

Advocates Cannot Prevent Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers In Court: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ajith Kumar and Others v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

The Madras High Court recently held that though advocates can raise objections with respect to police excess in the arrest of other lawyers, they cannot prevent the police from producing such accused lawyers in the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a plea by 10 lawyers to quash the criminal case registered against them for preventing the police from producing two advocates, accused in an NDPS case, before the court.

The court noted that if the advocates wanted to show solidarity against police excess, they could protest in a democratic and peaceful manner. However, when the advocates prevented the police from producing the accused in the court, the same would be an offence under Section 225 of the IPC.

Customers Can Lodge Police Complaints If TASMAC Employees Charge Them Above MRP For Liquor Bottles: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Devarajan v The Principal Secretary and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 7), observed that consumers can directly register police complaints if employees of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) overcharge them while purchasing liquor bottles.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has directed the state police to take swift action based on such consumer complaints. The court has also asked the Home Department to ensure that extra police personnel are deployed at crowded TASMAC outlets to manage the crowd.

The court passed the orders on a plea seeking registration of an FIR against employees of certain TASMAC shops, under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, to recover excess amount collected by the employees. The petitioner had also sought disciplinary action against the employees, including dismissal from service for their involvement in such malpractice.

Madras High Court Lays Down Guidelines To Prevent Police Harassment During Investigation, Mandates Written Summons U/S 179 BNSS

Case Title: R Raja v The Commissioner of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

The Madras High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by police personnel while summoning persons in connection with a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that while courts do not normally interfere with the investigation conducted by police officers, it could also not turn a blind eye to harassment by police officers under the guise of investigation.

The court thus directed the police to issue written summons to a person under Section 179 BNSS, specifying the particular date and time for appearing before the police for enquiry/investigation. The court further directed that the minutes of the enquiry should be recorded in the general diary/station diary or the daily diary of the police station.

Video Alleging Police Foisted False Cases Against Muslims Doesn't Amount To Offence Of Insulting Religion: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sherip and Another v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against a man for circulating a video alleging that the police were foisting false cases against Muslims. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the statement, even if taken in entirety, was only a political statement. The court thus noted that an offence under Section 295, as alleged in the present case, was not made out since there was no allegation of any act involving destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship.

Madras High Court Directs State To Constitute District-Level SITs To Probe Fraudulent Insurance Claims

Case Title: Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team in every district to investigate fraudulent insurance claims involving fake accidents, misrepresentation of fact, forged insurance policies, fabricated injuries, etc. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan has directed the State and DGP to ensure that the SIT is constituted in every district and functions in strict compliance with the court's directions. The court added that the SIT can also initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the persons involved in making fake insurance claims.

Can't Restrict Bar Members' Voting Rights Citing “One Bar, One Vote” When Association Rules Are Not Amended To That Effect: Madras High Court

Case Title: GK Chitradevi v The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

The Madras High Court recently held that the vote of a member of a bar association cannot be restricted citing “One Bar One Vote” when the association has not amended its rule for such restriction. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that when the association members were happy with the existing Rules and had not brought in any resolution or amendment to change the same, the members of the association could not be prevented from voting, stating that they had voted in elections for another bar association.

Madras High Court Orders State Bar Council's Interim Panel Of 'Elected Members' To Handle Affairs Till Permanent Committee Is Constituted

Case: K.Balu v Chairman Bar Council of India & others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

The Madras High Court has directed that an Interim Committee comprising elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall exclusively manage its affairs and enrolment functions until a permanent statutory committee is formally constituted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377]

The present petitions arose from “administrative interregnum” regarding the interim governance, enrolment and administrative management of the State Bar Council. The petitioners argued that after new members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were elected, an interim arrangement involving unelected persons was subsequently formed by the Bar Council of India to manage the state council's affairs. This violated the “democratic mandate” of the Advocates Act, 1961, the petitioners contended.

Disability Reservation Can't Be Claimed For Engagement As Govt Lawyer: Madras High Court

Case: V. Muthupandi v Secretary to Government, Public Department & another,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

The Madras High Court has held that the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in Government establishment under Section 34 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act does not extend to engagement of Government lawyers as such engagement is contractual and cannot be equated with appointment to Government service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378]

The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar said:

“The concept of appointment into Government service cannot be equated with engagement of a lawyer by the Government to represent the Government cases. Terms and conditions of appointment in Government departments and service conditions are distinct and different than that of the engagement of a lawyer to represent Government cases, which is on contractual basis".

"No Dishonest Intention": Madras High Court Quashes Case Against YouTuber Karthik Gopinath For Collecting Money ForTemple Restoration

Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

The Madras High Court recently quashed a case registered against YouTuber Karthik Gopinath, who collected money using a crowdfunding app for a temple's renovation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that although the money was collected without prior approval from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, he did not have any criminal intention of misappropriating the funds. The court also noted that there was no allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss since the money was duly handed over to the court account.

Madras High Court Defers Framing Of Charge In 'Cash-For-Vote' Case Against BJP's Nainar Nagendran, Others

Case Title: SR Sekar v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

The Madras High Court has deferred the framing of charges in a cash-for-vote case registered against BJP's Nainar Nagendran and others during the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan deferred the framing of charges till August 19. The court was hearing a plea filed by BJP's SR Sekar to quash the case registered against him, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, George Town. Noting that the case was posted on August 12 for framing of charges, the court directed the Magistrate not to frame charges till August 19.

Madras High Court Asks Nakkeeran Gopal To Appear Before Police In Promoting Enmity Case, Says Accused Can't Seek General 'No Harassment' Order

Case Title: Nakkeeran Gopal v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

The Madras High Court has said that an accused in a criminal case cannot seek a general direction asking police not to harass him/her. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381]

“When the petitioner is an accused in a registered case, the prayer for a general direction not to harass cannot be entertained by this Court,” the court observed.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant protection to journalist Nakeeran Gopal in his plea seeking direction to the police not to harass him. The court, however, added that Gopal would be at liberty to challenge the conditions that were imposed in the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, if they interfered with his fundamental right to freedom. The court added that the police could not seek information which was not legally permissible or not directly connected with the alleged offence.

Tamil Nadu Waqf Board Can't Appoint Muttawali For Waqf Properties Covered By Deeds, Decrees & Court Orders: Madras High Court Full Bench

Case title: J.Ilayas & Anr. v/s The Government of Tamil Nadu and batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

A full bench of the Madras High Court has held that Tamil Nadu Waqf Board cannot appoint Mutawallis for Waqf properties governed by deeds, decrees, court orders or schemes as per Section 66 of Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act 1995, and in such cases the State Government is the appointing authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382]

For context a mutawalli is the manager, custodian, or superintendent of a waqf property.

The court held that Section 32 which governs general superintendence power of the Waqf board over waqf properties is not rendered otiose by Section 66 clarifying that the latter does not curtail the board's powers in Section 32 and must be read harmoniously.

Explosives Licence Suspension | Uploading Order On Online Portal Not Valid Service, Must Be Sent By Post: Madras High Court

Case: R Balaraman v Joint Chief Controller Of Explosives Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization & others,

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383

The Madras High Court has set aside the suspension of an explosives dealer's licence, holding that an order suspending or revoking a licence under the Explosives Rules 2008 must be served in the manner prescribed under Rule 118(3) which contemplates service by post at the address of the licensee. [2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383]

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that uploading the suspension order on the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) web portal could not constitute valid service in the absence of any statutory provision permitting such a mode of service.

Unregistered Holographic Will With Minor Corrections Not Suspicious Circumstance If Testator's Signature Undisputed: Madras High Court

Case: G.R.Thangavelu v G.R.Indira & others,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

The Madras High Court has held that minor corrections, interpolations, use of different ink and non-registration of a holographic Will cannot, by itself, constitute suspicious circumstances when the testator's handwriting and signature are undisputed and the document indicates that the testator consciously applied his mind while making the bequests. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384]

The Bench held that where the handwriting and signature of the testator are undisputed, “some minor corrections, interpolations and some alterations” made by him in his own handwriting per se could not be termed as suspicious circumstance to dispute the Will.

Only A Parent Or Person Above 60 Years Can Prefer Complaint Under Senior Citizens Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Pradip C Nair and Another v The District Collector and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

The Madras High Court recently observed that only a parent or a person above the age of 60 years can maintain a complaint under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385]

Justice M Dhandapani thus interfered with an order passed by the District Collector, Kanyakumari, directing payment of Rs. 6000 per month as maintenance to the complainant. The court noted that the complainant was neither a parent nor a senior citizen since she had not attained 60 years of age.

Madras High Court Orders Demolition Of Church, Says Land Reserved For Community Hall Can't Be Diverted

Case: Injambakkam VGP Layout Owners v The Commissioner Greater Corporation of Chennai & others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

Holding that land earmarked as 'Community Hall' or for any specific purpose by Town Planning Authority cannot be used for any other purpose including public purpose, the Madras High Court directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to demolish a church illegally built on such land within 2 weeks. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386]

The Court found that the disputed land, measuring about 15 grounds and 1,625 sq.ft. and earmarked as a Community Hall in the layout approved in 1974, was being used for running a hotel and a church by the layout promoter. The Court noted that there was no material to show that permission had been obtained for putting up the church.

'Shocks Our Conscience': Madras High Court Slams TN Govt For Denying National Flag Rally Permit To BJP, Says Tricolour Transcends Political Colour

Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 14), permitted the Bharatiya Janata Party to conduct a "Tricolour Flag Yatra" in Coimbatore city in connection with the Independence Day celebrations.[2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387]

Though the BJP had initially proposed to conduct the rally on August 13, the State denied permission for the rally at the proposed location. On Friday, after deliberations, the BJP agreed to conduct the rally at another location, which had been designated for public meetings (involving more than 5,000 participants) by the District Collector.

While disposing of the plea, Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the court was shocked that the State had denied permission for a rally carrying the national flag on the grounds of law and order situation. The court added that irrespective of the party, everyone was bound to respect the flag. The court added that if someone wanted to respect the flag, the police should permit and join them, instead of obstructing the same.

Father Gifting Daughter Property As Part Of Matrimonial Settlement Not Joint Family Property Without Proof: Madras High Court

Case: S. D. S. Selvam v D. Ilavarasi & others,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

The Madras High Court has held that a father gifting property to his daughter when she was a minor by way of a gift deed as part of matrimonial settlement proceedings, cannot be treated as part of joint family property unless it is proved to have been purchased from joint family fund.

A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman was hearing a batch of appeals arising from a dispute over a property purchased in 1989 in the name of S Duraimanickam, father of Ilavarasi. S Duraimanickam's brother, SDS Selvam, later claimed that the property was actually purchased from the joint family nucleus and therefore could not have been settled by Duraimanickam in favour of his daughter.

Madras High Court Stays Investigation Against Fitness Centre Owner In TASMAC Corruption Case Involving Senthil Balaji

Case Title: Ramesh v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

The Madras High Court has stayed an investigation by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption against a fitness centre owner in a corruption case involving Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered a stay to balance the rights and protect the interest of the petitioner.

DNA Test Can't Be Ordered To Prove Bigamy When Paternity Is Not Directly In Issue: Madras High Court

Case Title: M v Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

The Madras High Court recently held that a DNA test for paternity of the child does not have any bearing in determining the offence of bigamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390]

Justice Momhammed Shaffiq held that a DNA test could be ordered only when there is an eminent need for the same. The court added that the offence of bigamy was not one warranting a DNA analysis.

Discussing the decisions of the Supreme Court, the court noted that even in cases where DNA test was a mode to establish an essential element, it could be directed only after exhausting all other remedies and only as a last resort.

'We Have A Long Way To Go': Madras High Court Calls For Training Of Judges On Examining Child Sexual Abuse Victims

Case Title: Paulpandiyan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

The Madras High Court has highlighted that the judicial officers presiding over the Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act should ensure that the child victim is made to feel comfortable in the court and should build a rapport with the child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391]

The court added that there was a need to understand the victim children and empathise with them. The court added that the role of the judge was to elicit the truth with great empathy and care.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy said that though the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy was conducting workshops to ensure that presiding officers do not call child witnesses to the court repeatedly, the court suggested that the officers could also be given training on the practical art of dealing with child witnesses.

Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja

Case Title: C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (August 18), rejected an election petition filed by a voter of Uthangarai Legislative Assembly constituency, challenging the victory of N Elaiyaraja, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazham (TVK) party candidate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392]

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed an application filed by the winning MLA seeking to reject the election petition and thus dismissed the plea. The judge also made it clear that he intended to decide all the election petitions pending before him within the 6-month time period provided under the Representation of People Act, and not to keep it pending for long.

The court noted that the petitioner had challenged the election on the ground that her nomination was rejected improperly. The court further noted that the petitioner's nomination was rejected since her name was not on the electoral roll. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier approached the court aggrieved by the exclusion of her name from the electoral roll, and the plea was rejected by the court, holding that the petitioner had slept over her rights. The court thus held that there was no cause of action to challenge the victory.

SHRC Can't Enquire Into Police Handling Of Complaints Without Sufficient Material To Establish Human Rights Violation: Madras High Court

Case Title: T Parthiban and Another v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

The Madras High Court recently held that a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) cannot enquire into allegations regarding the manner in which a police official handled complaints or registered a police case, unless human rights violations were shown. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393]

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar thus set aside an order of the SHRC which had directed two police officers to pay compensation of Rs 1,00,000 each, based on a complaint by a woman. The court held that if there was police excess, the remedy was elsewhere and the SHRC could not inquire into the same.

Election Candidate Can't Seek Vote Recount Merely On Belief That Good Public Service Must Have Won Him More Votes: Madras High Court

Case Title: SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

The Madras High Court has held that a person cannot seek a recount of votes merely on his belief that more people would vote for him for his good public service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected an election petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation candidate Anthony Muthu challenging the victory of Indian National Congress candidate Tharahai Cuthbert during the 2026 assembly elections.

The court noted that Anthony had not placed any material raising a suspicion about the correctness of the count, and no other material was pleaded except his perception. The court noted that Muthu believed he would have received more votes in the election, particularly in 8 booths, where he had done good public service. The court held that such suspicion alone cannot be the basis to challenge the counting of the vote.

Madras High Court Dismisses PIL Against Dropping Of Disqualification Proceedings Against AIADMK MLAs Who Voted For TVK Govt

Case Title: PV Selvakumar v The Speaker and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the Tamil Nadu Speaker's order dropping the disqualification proceedings against MLAs of the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party, who voted against the party whip during the confidence motion in favour of Chief Minister Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea on Tuesday (August 18).

“God Does Not Discriminate”: Madras High Court Says No Room For Discrimination In Temples, Places Of Worship

Case Title: Madhavan Ramanuja Dasan v The Commissioner, HR & CE

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

The Madras High Court has reiterated that all living beings are equal before god and god does not discriminate. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396]

Quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice E Manoharan observed as under,

“Before we proceed, it is necessary to extract the following from Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 9 Verse 29 [Translated] “I am equally disposed to all living beings. I am neither partial to anyone nor do I hate anyone. But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me and I am in them.”- Lord Krishna In the eyes of God, all living beings are equal and God does not discriminate,” the court said.

TN Govt Free To Render 'Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu' Before National Anthem At Official Functions: Centre To Madras High Court

Case Title: Ananya Radhakrishnan v The Join Secretary to Government of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

The Madras High Court has closed a public interest litigation challenging a Government Order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which mandates the order in which the National Song Vande Mataram and the National Anthem Jana Gana Mana are to be played during a state ceremony attended by the Governor of the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after taking note of a revised circular issued by the Ministry, which gave discretion to the States to decide when to render their State songs.

The court noted that the State of Tamil Nadu has also issued a Government Order mandating that the State song – Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu be sung at the beginning of programmes across educational institutions, government officers, etc in Tamil Nadu. Considering the circular and the GO, the bench closed the plea.

“Can't Have Vague Petitions”: Madras High Court Expresses Disinclination To Entertain Plea Seeking Removal Of Illegal Banners In Chennai City

Case Title: G Deva v The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (August 19), expressed disinclination to entertain a plea seeking direction to the authorities to remove all illegal banners, placards, and advertisements put up in public places, in violation of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules 2023.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination after noting that the petitioner had not specifically listed out the places where the banners were set up illegally. The court orally remarked that it could not entertain such vague petitions to remove banners from the entire city.

After the court expressed disinclination, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea with liberty to file a fresh petition before the concerned authorities by listing specific details on where the illegal banners were erected.

Madras High Court Flags Systemic Gaps In POCSO Act Implementation, Including FIRs Against Minor Boys In Consensual Relationships

Case Title: S Venkatesh v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

The Madras High Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to constitute committees comprising Secretaries from various departments to address the systematic gaps in the implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in the State.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that there were correctional requirements which needed to be adopted by the stakeholders. The court added that the law relating to children was still developing and needed constant tweaking and readjustments.

Right To Marry Human Right, Post-Divorce Marriage Valid When Appeal Was Dismissed For Default: Madras High Court

Case Title: R v J

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

The Madras High Court recently held that a re-marriage that took place post-divorce was valid when the appeal against the order of divorce was dismissed for default. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400].

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi noted that when there was no stay on the divorce order, the status of the woman was that of a “divorced woman” and she was thus entitled to remarry. The court thus refused relief to a husband, dismissing an appeal against the order of divorce.

During the course of the hearing, the wife informed the court that she had remarried in the meanwhile and thus the appeal itself had become infructuous. The court noted that though the appeal against the order of divorce was filed on time, it was dismissed for non-prosecution and later restored.

The court held that when the appeal was dismissed for default, the rigours of Section 15 of the Act would not apply.

Madras High Court Closes Plea Seeking Reconsideration Of “Jana Nayagan” Movie Certification For Alleged Objectionable Content

Case Title: M Chinnasamy v The Chairperson CBFC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

The Madras High Court has disposed of a plea seeking direction to the Central Board of Film Certification to reconsider the certificate of Chief Minister Vijay's “Jana Nayagan” movie for alleged objectionable scenes. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel had noted that the grievance of the petitioner was that in one scene of the movie, objectionable remarks were made against his village “Pappapatti” in Usialampatti Taluk, Madurai.

The court, however, perused the script of the movie and found that the movie only made reference to a fictional village “Pappampatti” and not the petitioner's village. The court remarked that though it aligned with the anguish expressed by the villagers, the reference in the movie was only to a fictional village and the producers never intended to harm the reputation of the village.

Contradictory Doctor Testimony In POCSO Case Prompts Madras High Court To Order Guidelines For Medical Witnesses

Case Title: Nambu Kaleeswaran and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

After taking note of contradictory testimony of a Doctor in a POCSO case, the Madras High Court recently directed the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department and the Director of Medical Education to issue a comprehensive circular/guideline to all Government Medical Colleges, Government Hospitals, etc, detaling the duties and responsibilities of Government medical professionals while acting as expert witnesses before court in POCSO cases [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402]

Justice B Pugalendhi added that the directions were intended to strengthen the quality of medical evidence before the court, to reinforce confidence in expert witnesses and minimise the possibility of errors. The court highlighted that the efficiency of the justice delivery system relied heavily on the credibility of expert evidence and thus every medical professional needed to discharge their duty with the highest standard of competence.

Madras High Court Closes Dravidar Kazhagam Plea After Police Grants Permission For Anti-NEET, EWS Bike Rally

Case Title: Dravidar Kazhagam v The Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

The Madras High Court has closed the plea filed by the Dravidar Kazhagam party seeking permission to conduct a bike rally against NEET and EWS in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after taking note of the State's submission that the police officials on the route of the rally have granted permission.

“The State Public Prosecutor submits that the police officials situated on route of the rally have all granted permission to the petitioner to take the bike rally. His statement is recorded. As the relief sought for by the petitioner is granted, this Writ Petition stands closed,” the court said.

The party had approached the court through its Vice President Kali Poongundran after the State police denied permission for conducting the bike rally. The party argued that it had a right of speech and expression to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. Thus, the party argued that the order of denial for propagating against NEET and EWS was against the Constitution.

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Students Who Peacefully Protested Conference On Eradication Of Sanatana Dharma

Case Title: M Senthoorvelan v State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

The Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against a law student and others for protesting against the conduct of a conference for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404]

Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the student and others had raised their agitation in a peaceful and democratic manner and there was no allegation of any damage to public property. Thus, the court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

HR&CE Executive Officer's Powers Confined To Temple Properties, Can't Interfere In Religious Affairs Or Traditions: Madras High Court

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

The Madras High Court has made it clear that an Executive Officer (EO) appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to manage a temple cannot interfere with the religious activities, customary practices and traditions of the temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405]

A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that as per Section 45(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, an EO can only exercise functions with respect to the properties of the temple. The bench thus held that the EO cannot deal with any aspect of the temple which has a religious character.

Husband Can't Be Denied Right To Travel Abroad Merely Due To Pending Domestic Violence Case: Madras High Court

Case Title: R Ramaswamy v The Regional Passport Office and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

The Madras High Court recently observed that a husband or wife cannot be denied the right to travel abroad merely because a dispute between the spouses was pending.

Justice V Lakshminarayan thus granted relief to a husband who was asked to return his passport on account of pending domestic violence proceedings initiated by the wife. The court held that the domestic violence proceedings were civil in nature till an order under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was passed.

Madras High Court Denies Bail To UAPA Accused, Rejects Claim That Potassium Nitrate, Sugar & Batteries Were For Agricultural And Daily Use

Case Title: B. Syed Ali @ Zubair @ Anees @ Abu backer v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

The Madras High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly being involved in a terror conspiracy in support of ISIS and Daesh. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407]

Though the accused argued that potassium nitrate, sugar and batteries were purchased for agricultural and daily use, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan rejected the argument. The court held that though the items taken separately would not be of much consequence, the prosecution case was that the items were used for operating an IED as a preparation for violent jihad.

Wiping Minor's Tears, Holding Her Hand Without Sexual Intent Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court

Case Title: Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

The Madras High Court recently held that any contact during the ordinary course of human dealings, like taking a hand, touching a shoulder, wiping tears, and consoling someone, would not inherently be sexual, and any sexual intention would have to be gathered through surrounding circumstances. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408]

Justice R Vijayakumar thus quashed a criminal case registered against a constable who was accused of offences under the POCSO Act, after noting that the man had only consoled the minor girl, with whom he was in a romantic relationship.

The court noted that the provision does not penalise physical contact alone unless it is with sexual intent. Thus, the court highlighted that sexual intent was the foundation for proving the offence.

Malayalam Linguistic Minority Status Of College In Tamil Nadu Not Defeated By Management From Majority Community In Kerala: Madras High Court

Case Title: S. Srinivasan Menon v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

The Madras High Court has held that Malayalam is a minority language in the State of Tamil Nadu and thus, the minority status of a college being run for protecting the interest of the Malayalam-speaking minority in Tamil Nadu would not be affected merely because the college is being administered by members of the Nair community, which is a majority in Kerala. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel was hearing a public interest litigation filed by a man seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu State Government, Director of Collegiate Education, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, The Manomaniam Sundaranar University and the District Collector of Kanyakumari to cancel the minority status of Sree Ayyappa College for Women.

Decide Bail Cancellation Petitions Within Four Weeks Of Serving Notice: Madras High Court Directs Trial Courts

Case Title: Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

The Madras High Court has directed all Principal District Judges and other judges in the District Judiciary to dispose of petitions for cancellation of bail within 4 weeks of service of notice. [2026 LiveLaw(Mad) 410]

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B Murugesan observed as under,

“In view of the above, the Principal District Judges and the other Judges where petitions for cancellation of bail are pending, shall ensure that such petitions are decided within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing immediately after the service of notice,” the court said.

The court was hearing a habeas corpus plea seeking to produce a man, who was detained under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act.

Cockfights Are Illegal, Previous Orders Permitting Them 'Totally Unwarranted': Madras High Court

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v G Manickam

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

The Madras High Court recently held that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act prohibits cockfights and thus, the same are illegal and cannot be permitted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel allowed a revision petition filed by the District Collector of Thanjavur and held that a previous order passed by a division bench of the court, which permitted the conduct of a cockfight subject to certain conditions, was unwarranted and contrary to law.

Madras High Court Calls For Setting Up Of Two Special Courts To Exclusively Hear UAPA Cases, Seeks Report From Central And State Govts

Case Title: Mohamed Thalha v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

The Madras High Court has called for the setting up of two special courts for exclusively hearing cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in line with a judgment of the Supreme Court directing the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412]

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan have suo motu impleaded the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, and the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home (Courts – II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai in a case and sought a compliance report with respect to the directions.

"Ministers Not Above Law": Madras High Court Orally Remarks While Directing TN Finance Minister To Appear Before Magistrate In Assault Case

Case Title: Marie Wilson v The Station House Officer and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

The Madras High Court, on Friday (August 28), orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and they are expected to appear before courts where cases are pending against them. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the Tamil Nadu Finance Minister Marie Wilson to appear before the Judicial Magistrate in Puducherry in connection with an assault case pending against him.

The court directed the Minister's counsel to inform, by afternoon, the date on which the Minister was willing to appear before the Magistrate and passed over the hearing to the post-noon session. When the matter was again taken up post noon, the counsel assured the court that the Minister would appear before the court after he was back in the town and requested to permit withdrawal of the plea. The court took one record the submission and closed the plea.

The court orally remarked that Wilson could not remain absent before the court and had to appear before the judge. It recollected that PV Narasimha Rao had appeared before the court even when he was holding the office of the Prime Minister of the country. The judge thus orally remarked that Ministers are not above the law and had to appear before the court.

False Social Media Posts Against Minister Not Offence Without Intent To Cause Alarm, But May Attract Defamation: Madras High Court

Case Title: Vinoth Suriya Kumar v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

While quashing a case against a man for allegedly spreading false information against the Tamil Nadu Minister for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, the Madras High Court held that false information against a Minister, without any intention to cause hurt or to create fear, is not an offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 414]

“The instant post can be treated as false information and the spread of a rumour through electronic means. But only if there is an intent to cause, or it is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquillity, the same would attract the offence,” the court noted.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, asked the man, Vinoth Suriya Kumar, to file an affidavit acknowledging his mistake and seeking apology. The court noted that such an affidavit was necessary since such reckless allegations in social media posts would cause permanent damage and create unnecessary anxiety among people about the newly elected Minister.

Demanding Repayment Of Loan Amount Not 'Intentional Aid' For Abetment Of Suicide: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sathiyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

The Madras High Court recently held that demanding repayment of a loan amount that was advanced to a person will not amount to instigation or intentional aid for the abetment of suicide. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 415].

Granting bail to a man, Justice S Karthikeyan noted that there was no material to show that the man intended the death of the deceased or instigated him. The court noted that the man had lent money to the deceased and demanded its repayment within a week. Following the demand, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. The court noted that it could not be said that the petitioner instigated him.

Being An Advocate Not Ground To Hold He Cannot Commit Any Offence: Madras High Court

Case Title: K Backiyaraj v The Inspector Of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

The Madras High Court recently held that being an Advocate alone is not a ground to hold that the person is not capable of committing any offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 416]

Justice P Murugan refused to quash a case against a lawyer accused of instigating a group of men to attack and threaten another man over an alleged land dispute.

The court noted that merely because the man was an advocate, it could not be held that he could not commit an offence, and an advocate, like any other person, could commit an offence depending upon their conduct and circumstances.