NOMINAL INDEX

A v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477

RS Tamilvendan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478

N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479

V Thangavel v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 480

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 481

G v A, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482

R Annadurai v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483

Thangamani Rajamanikkam v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484

Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485

The Secretary to Government and Others v R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486

Sujan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487

Bank of Baroda v Kondepati Ganga Prasad and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488

Ala Alagappan v The Additional Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489

V Durairaj v The Joint Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 490

Visalatchi v The Commissioner of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491

BS v PS, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 492

Baskaran Thanthai Periyar Nagar v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493

N. Vikraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494

The District Collector, Madurai District & Others Vs. P. Pushpam, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495

K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496

Ankur Kumar Jain v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497

Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498

State of Tamil Nadu v Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499

G v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500

K Ponmudy v Assistant Director, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

K v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 502

ECR P Saravanan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 503

C. V. Shanmugam v P. Kamalakkanna, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504

Milany Ponnuram v Udhayanidhi Stalin, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 505

K. Sivakumar v Rajendran R and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506

V. G. Jagadeesan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 507

G Devarajan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508

T Deivakumar v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 509

Shyabu Khan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 510

BT Pavithra Kumari v The Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 511

KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512

Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 513

Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 514

John Daniel v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515

S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516

M Anburaj v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517

M Abishek v The Senior Superintendent, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 518

P Yuthe v State and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519

S Veeraraghavan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520

R Karthikeyan v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521

REPORTS

Marriage Cannot Be Reduced To Sole Object Of Procreation; Childlessness Not Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: A v S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477

The Madras High Court recently refused to grant divorce to a husband on the ground of alleged cruelty, after noting that the wife had not failed in the matrimonial relationship just because the parties did not have a child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 477]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that the inability of parties to have a child cannot be termed as matrimonial fault of the wife. The court stressed that the object of marriage cannot be reduced to that of procreation.

The court observed that in the present case, the wife had suffered from fibroids and had subjected herself to treatment. Highlighting the physical discomfort involved in the medical process, the court remarked that the wife's willingness to go through the treatment, knowing about its challenges, itself showed her intention to preserve the marriage.

'How Is Public Money Being Wasted?' Madras High Court Questions Plea Against New Secretariat Building

Case Title: RS Tamilvendan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5) wondered how public money was wasted by the construction of a new secretariat building. The court also questioned what powers it had to issue orders against the construction of the government building. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the oral observations while hearing a plea by a lawyer, Tamilvendan, challenging the decision of the Tamil Nadu Government to construct a new secretariat building in Chennai's Pattinampakkam (Foreshore Estate).

Madras High Court Questions Private Transport Operator's Locus To Challenge TN Govt's Free Bus Travel Scheme

Case Title: N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479

A bus operator from Erode has withdrawn her plea before the Madras High Court challenging the Tamil Nadu Government's “Vetri Payanam” Scheme, giving free travel to women in state-owned buses across the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479]

The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination to entertain the same. The bench wondered how the petitioner, who had an operating licence only in a particular area, could challenge a scheme which was applicable to the entire state.

The court also noted that the petitioner had challenged the announcement made by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay without challenging the Government Order in connection with the scheme. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the present plea and work out her remedy as per law.

Madras High Court Calls For Mandatory Attachment Of Properties Suspected To Be Acquired Through Corruption, Suggests Amendment To PC Act

Case Title: V Thangavel v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 480

The Madras High Court has suggested amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act to ensure that properties, which are believed to have been obtained through corrupt means, are mandatorily attached and are not dealt with during the pendency of proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 478]

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that such a strong and deterrent measure will put fear in the minds of officials, who otherwise enjoy the fruits of corruption.

The court noted that some special legislations like the NDPS Act, Mines and Minerals Act etc mandated attachment of properties to prohibit offenders from holding the illegally acquired properties. The court added that corruption should be treated even more seriously and thus attachment of properties was necessary to combat the vice of corruption.

Madras High Court Permits DMK To Sue TN Ministers Aadhav Arjuna, CTR Nirmal Kumar Over 'Defamatory' Remarks In Veeramani POCSO Case

Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 481

The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5) allowed an application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking leave of the court to sue Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, and others for alleged defamatory statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani.

Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed the application, thereby permitting the party to sue the Ministers and others for defamation. The court had reserved orders on the application on October 1.

Woman Made To Believe Man Had Divorced First Wife Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: G v A

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482

The Madras High Court recently held that a woman, who was not aware of the husband's earlier marriage and was made to believe that the first wife had been divorced, would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS).

The court thus ordered maintenance to be paid to a woman, who was argued to be the husband's second wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 482]

Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the term “wife” has a wider connotation with respect to the grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The court added that the parties are presumed to be married if the man and the woman were in a relationship for a very long time.

Rithanya Dowry Death Case: Madras High Court Directs Return Of 100 Sovereigns Of Gold & Car To Deceased's Father

Case Title: R Annadurai v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483

In the Rithanya dowry death case, the Madras High Court has directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Avinashi Sub Division – Tiruppur District) to hand over 100 sovereigns of gold and a Volvo car, which were given as dowry to be handed over to Rithanya's father. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 483]

27-year-old Rithanya had committed suicide in July last year, over alleged dowry harassment. She had married Kavin Kumar three months before her death and had allegedly complained to her parents that her husband and his family had been harassing her mentally and physically over dowry and other issues. The final report has been filed for offences under Sections 85 and 108 of the BNS along with Sections 3(1) of and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

“Groups Fighting Over Non-Existing Concept Of Caste”: Madras High Court Asks HR&CE Joint Commissioner To Decide Temple Festival Dispute

Case Title: Thangamani Rajamanikkam v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484

The Madras High Court recently directed the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to decide issues with respect to the conduct of the temple festival in Arulmigu Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Temple, without reference to caste. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 484]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the issues with respect to who was entitled to conduct the festival and what was the nature of the festival were matters which fell under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

The court also noted that two groups were fighting with respect to the conduct of the temple festival, over a non-existent concept of caste. The court thus directed the Joint Commissioner to consider the issue on merits.

“Hinduism Is Inclusive, Abrahamic Religions Inherently Exclusive”: Madras High Court While Upholding Denial Of FCRA Registration To Zen Trust

Case Title: Kanzeon Public Charitable Trust v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485

The Madras High Court recently upheld the rejection of an application filed by a charitable trust seeking registration under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA), holding that the trust had failed to correctly disclose its religious character. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 485]

A Division Bench comprising Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed that the trust itself claimed to subscribe to Zen Buddhist philosophy and that Zen Buddhism is a variant of the Mahayana Buddhist school.

It held that the trust was therefore required to correctly identify itself as a religious organisation while seeking FCRA registration.

While examining the nature of the trust, the Court also observed that “unlike Hinduism which is inclusive, the Abrahamic religions are inherently exclusive.”

Sympathy Can't Replace Proof Of Negligence: Madras High Court Reduces Compensation To Woman For Failed Tubectomy

Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Others v R

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order granting Rs 3 Lakh compensation to a woman who underwent fourth pregnancy as a result of a failed tubectomy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 486]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the risk of failure of tubectomy was a medically recognised fact and even as per the Standards and Quality Assurance in Sterilization Services, about 5 in 1000 sterilizations carried a small risk of failure. The court added that whether there was medical negligence or not had to be tested based on evidence, and a writ court could not decide such issues while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Migrated In Search Of Employment, Unable To Pay Fine: Madras High Court Reduces Default Sentence Imposed On Bangladeshi National

Case Title: Sujan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487

The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a Bangladeshi national for violating the provisions of the Foreigners Act and entering India without a valid passport, visa, or travel documents. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487]

Though Justice Nirmal Kumar upheld the sentence of 2 years and a fine of Rs 10,000, the court noted that the individuals had migrated to India in search of employment and were unable to pay the fine amount. Thus, considering the pecuniary circumstances, the court was inclined to reduce the default sentence (for non-payment of fine) from one month to one week.

The court further directed the concerned authorities to make sure that the parties, along with their children are deported to Bangladesh within a period of 30 days after they have undergone the period of sentence.

'Taking Loan Doesn't Mortgage Citizen's Rights': Madras High Court Rejects Bank's Plea To Restrict Loan Defaulter's Foreign Travel

Case Title: Bank of Baroda v Kondepati Ganga Prasad and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488

The Madras High Court recently held that a loan defaulter cannot be forced to stay within the country to ensure repayment of loan, when there is no fraud on the part of the defaulter. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 488].

Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that a person taking a loan is not mortgaging his constitutional rights with the bank and thus cannot be prevented from travel.

The court added that a person's travel should not be interfered with by issuing a Look Out Circular merely on a letter written to the Bureau of Immigration. The court remarked that the letter by the bank is not a law and if a nationalised bank is permitted to do such an act, every private creditor or NBFC will start approaching the police for issuing LOC to prevent debtors from going abroad.

ED Should Prioritise Cases Involving Public Money, National Scams; Not Private Property Disputes: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ala Alagappan v The Additional Director

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489

The Madras High Court recently remarked that the Enforcement Directorate should use its powers and resources for cases involving public money, public interest, corruption and scams of national consequences, instead of disputes between private individuals. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 489]

Justice N Ramesh commented that the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are not meant to be used in property dispute between private individuals, for which the ordinary criminal and civil law already provides relief.

Madras High Court Orders Inquiry Into Unauthorised Auction Of 200 Buffaloes Offered By Devotees, Action Against Temple Executive Officer

Case Title: V Durairaj v The Joint Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 490

The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department to conduct an enquiry into the unauthorised sale of 200 buffaloes that were donated by devotees to the Arulmigu Pathrakaliamman Temple in Salem District.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that there was a severe lapse of supervision by the Executive Officer who was expected to supervise the temple. The court added that while displacement of 1 or 2 buffaloes might go unnoticed, in the present case, the sale was of over 200 buffaloes. The court thus suspected negligence on the part of the EO to safeguard the livestock.

Madras High Court Permits First Death Anniversary Rites Of Prime Accused In BSP Leader Armstrong Murder Case

Case Title: Visalatchi v The Commissioner of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491

The Madras High Court recently permitted the widow of the prime accused in the murder of BSP leader Armstrong to hold a customary observance in connection with the first death anniversary of the accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 491]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that even if the deceased was one of the blackest rogues of the 21^st century, his family still had the right to follow customary observance, in line with their beliefs. The court added that even if the accused was dead, his family was still alive and should be permitted to perform observance as per their beliefs.

Madras High Court Grants Child's Custody To Mother After Noting Father's Matrimonial Ad Saying He Doesn't Have Kids

Case Title: BS v PS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 492

The Madras High Court recently gave full custody of a minor girl to the mother working in Canada, after taking note of the father's matrimonial ad, where he had mentioned himself as a divorcee with no kids.

Justice PB Balaji remarked that the advertisement clearly shows that the father had disowned his minor child and was in no way competent to be a guardian or act in the best interest of the child.

Can We Blame Citizens For Acting On Their Own When Official Machinery Fails? Madras High Court On Villagers Removing Illegally Installed Pipes

Case Title: Baskaran Thanthai Periyar Nagar v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493

The Madras High Court recently directed the trial court to consider the bail pleas of two men who had damaged a pipe that was illegally installed by a private entity, without any permission from any authority. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 493]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi noted that the villagers had damaged an illegal installation when the administration had failed to take action. While the court admitted that the action of the villagers could not be condoned, it wondered how the villagers could be blamed for acting on their own when the official machinery failed to take action.

Private Employers, Educational Institutions Can't Mandatorily Seek Caste Details In Application Forms: Madras High Court

Case Title: N. Vikraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that no private educational institution or private employer in Tamil Nadu can mandatorily collect caste or community details in application forms. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 494]

Employee Appointed Under Government Orders Is Entitled To Regularization Of Suspension Period & Subsistence Allowance: Madras High Court

Case Title: The District Collector, Madurai District & Others Vs. P. Pushpam

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R.Sakthivel held that a Noon Meal Organizer is a public servant holding a substantive post under the State Government, and in the absence of statutory service rules, service conditions can be governed by administrative orders issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 495]

Plea Seeking FIR Against TN Minister Marie Wilson Over Admission Of Paying Bribe Withdrawn From Madras High Court

Case Title: K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 496

A plea calling for registration of an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister Marie Wilson for his statement admitting that he had given a bribe to the previous regime in connection with his private educational institution has been withdrawn from the Madras High Court.

The petitioner, on Monday (October 12), requested the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan to permit him to withdraw the plea. The court accepted the request, and the plea was withdrawn.

As per the petitioner, on August 24, 2026, the Minister had openly made a statement on the assembly floor, confessing on record that he had paid a bribe to a public official/former Minister to secure official recognition and permission for his private educational institution.

Police Failure To Furnish Written Grounds Of Arrest Is Dereliction Of Duty, Officer Liable To Departmental Action: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ankur Kumar Jain v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497

The Madras High Court recently observed that failure to furnish grounds of arrest in writing would be viewed as a dereliction of duty on the part of the arresting officer, and he shall be liable to departmental proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 497]

Justice N Ramesh directed the Director General of Police (Law & Order) to issue instructions to every police unit in the State.

The court reiterated that not supplying the grounds of arrest would vitiate the arrest and there would be no option but to release the accused, no matter how grave the offence is. The court added that in many serious cases, the accused are released not because the case is weak but because the police did not do what should be done at the time of arrest.

ALSO READ: Madras High Court Disapproves Of Tamil Nadu Police Claim That Accused May Abscond Because He's 'North Indian'

Madras High Court Upholds TN Speaker's Acceptance Of Resignation Of AIADMK MLAs Who Joined TVK, Allows Disqualification Proceedings To Continue

Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (October 13), upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu Speaker, accepting the resignation of MLAs who quit All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party immediately after elections and joined TVK. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 498]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the resignation of the MLAs was genuine and the Speaker was not expected to conduct a detailed enquiry into the resignation process. The court made it clear that the resignaion of the MLAs would not bar the disqualification proceedings and directed the Speaker to complete the disqualification proceedings within 2 months.

DVAC Not Exempt From Sharing Information Relating To Corruption And Human Rights Violations Under RTI Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499

The Madras High Court recently held that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is not exempt under the Right to Information Act from sharing information relating to corruption and human rights violations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 499]

Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar noted that though the DVAC was exempted from the RTI Act, by way of a Government Order issued as per Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Act itself made it clear that the information relating to corruption and human rights violations would not be excluded.

The court also rejected the argument of the DVAC, claiming that details regarding the enquiry were confidential information as per Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual. The court remarked that the department could not create an exemption which did not exist under the Act. The court added that the confidentiality aspect could be looked into to decide whether particular information was supplied in confidence, but could not be used as a justification to withhold the entire records.

Spouses Can't Be Compelled To Continue Broken Marriage For Welfare Of Children: Madras High Court

Case Title: G v B

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500

The Madras High Court recently held that a couple should not be forced to continue a matrimonial relationship, which has become unworkable, merely for the welfare of the child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 500]

Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed that the court was expected to balance the welfare of the child with the realities of the matrimonial relationship. The court added that when the relationship between the parents loses cordiality and turns into constant discord, the four walls of the home cease to become a home for the child.

The court also remarked that though the child may have all material facilities, if he has to witness his parents standing as strangers under the same roof, he would not get a peaceful life. The court added that the child often becomes a silent sufferer in such a broken emotional environment.

Madras High Court Quashes ED's Money Laundering Case Against Former Minister Ponmudi, Notes Acquittal In Predicate Offence

Case Title: K Ponmudy v Assistant Director

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (October 13), quashed a case against former Minister K Ponmudi under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act pending before the Special Court in Chennai. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 501]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the predicate offence, based on which the Enforcement Directorate had registered the case under the PMLA, had ended in the acquittal of Ponmudi and others. Thus, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the bench noted that the enforcement proceedings against Ponmudi and others could not continue.

Madras High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs On Man Who Sought Child's DNA Test To Humiliate Wife, Protract Her Maintenance Case

Case Title: K v S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 502

The Madras High Court recently refused a man's plea for a DNA test, noting that he had filed the same 10 years after the wife filed a Domestic Violence case, without providing any reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay.

Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked that the husband had sought a DNA test only to humiliate and defame his wife in the society, and to protract the maintenance case filed by the wife. Thus, the court deemed it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs 50,000 on the husband, to be payable to the wife.

Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against TVK MLA ECR Saravanan Over 'Unauthorised' Hoardings, Says No Public Structure Destroyed

Case Title: ECR P Saravanan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 503

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), quashed one of the FIRs registered against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) MLA from Sholinganallur constituency, P Saravanan alias ECR Saravanan, in connection with erecting unauthorised banners.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan noted that no public structure had been destroyed by Saravanan's acts and thus continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of law.

'Bald Allegations': Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against AIADMK's CV Shanmugam Over Alleged Voter Bribery

Case Title: C. V. Shanmugam v P. Kamalakkanna

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504

The Madras High Court has rejected an election petition challenging the victory of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) MLA CV Shanmugam from Mailam constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 504]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the primary allegation made against Shanmugan was that he was involved in distributing money to the voters, which constituted a corrupt practice under the Representation of People Act. The court observed that the allegations were vague, bald and bereft of material facts.

Madras High Court Closes Plea Seeking Expeditious Action On Complaint Against Udhayanidhi Stalin After Magistrate Issues Pre-Cognisance Notice

Case Title: Milany Ponnuram v Udhayanidhi Stalin

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 505

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (October 15), closed a plea with respect to the delay in numbering a complaint filed against the Leader of the Opposition, Udhayanidhi Stalin, over alleged corrupt practice during the 2026 Assembly Elections.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan has closed the plea after taking note of a report from the Metropolitan Magistrate, informing that the complaint has been numbered and a pre-cognisance notice has been issued. The court had previously asked the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Georgetown, Chennai, to state how long it would take to number the criminal complaint.

CM Vijay Asking Children To Persuade Parents To Vote For TVK Not 'Corrupt Practice' To Challenge Election: Madras High Court

Case Title: K. Sivakumar v Rajendran R and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506

The Madras High Court recently held that CM Vijay's appeal to children to persuade their parents to vote for the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party would not amount to undue influence or corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act warranting a challenge to his victory. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 506]

However, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the videos that were circulating online, which showed children asking their family members to vote for TVK, were in bad taste and reflected poor parenting. The court added that the issue of whether it could be a ground to set aside the election was a matter for a larger debate by the nation and the Parliament.

The court remarked that such persuasion by the children, even if taken to be true and correct, was not one which would sway the choice of the adult exercising his/her right to vote. The court added that even if the parents use the persuasion as an excuse to make a particular choice, it would be on their own volition and could not be said to be under undue influence.

Madras High Court Paves Way For RSS Route March, Asks State Not To Deny Permission In Future

Case Title: V. G. Jagadeesan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 507

The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 16), paved the way for a route march by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to commemorate the founding day of the organisation.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan closed the plea after the Advocate General informed the court that the police would grant permission for the route march by Monday (October 19), considering the representation and other details provided by the organisers. The court made it clear that the route marches shall be held on October 25th and November 1st and asked the organisers to provide all necessary details.

The court also asked the Tamil Nadu police not to deny such permission in the future, considering the guidelines that have already been framed by the court. The court also asked the organisers to give applications in advance and directed the police not to sit on the applications and to grant approval as and when the applications are filed in the future.

Veeramani POCSO Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Fresh Plea For CBI Probe, Calls It Attempt To Stall Proceedings

Case Title: G Devarajan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 508

The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 16), dismissed as withdrawn a public interest litigation to transfer the investigation in the POCSO case involving grantine baron R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that a single judge had already dismissed a similar plea, taking note of the substantial progress made by the Special Investigation Team investigating the offence. The court noted that the petitioner had not projected any valid reason for transferring the probe. The court thus remarked that the plea was only filed to stall the proceedings and not with a bona fide cause.

Husband's Extramarital Affair By Itself Not Cruelty To Wife Under S.498A IPC: Madras High Court

Case Title: T Deivakumar v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 509

The Madras High Court recently held that a husband's illicit relationship with another woman, by itself, is not cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.

Justice Sunder Mohan thus refused to interfere with the acquittal of a husband, who was charged under provisions for cruelty and dowry harassment after his wife committed suicide along with their child.

Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Using AI Videos Of CM Joseph Vijay To Scam Public

Case Title: Shyabu Khan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 510

The Madras High Court, on Friday (October 23), granted bail to a Rajasthani man who allegedly created fake AI videos of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay and scammed people by collecting money in his name. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 510]

Justice N Ramesh granted conditional bail, directing the applicant to report to the jurisdictional police daily until further orders. The court also asked the applicant to provide two sureties, one blood surety and one local surety, for bail.

The court granted bail after noting that the applicant had been in judicial custody since September 12, 2026. The court also noted that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet was also ready. The court also noted that the mobile phone used in the alleged offence had been seized. The court was thus inclined to grant bail, on the condition of daily appearance.

Mother Has Right To Decide Whether To Bring Child Into World If Child Won't Have Normal Life: Madras High Court

Case Title: BT Pavithra Kumari v The Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 511

The Madras High Court recently permitted termination of a 28-week pregnancy, after noting that the foetus had substantial abnormalities. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 511]

Justice PT Asha held that the mother had a right to decide if she wanted to bring the child into the world, especially when the child would not be able to live a normal life.

The court added that it was the parents who have to see their child suffer day in and day out. The court also remarked that the unborn child also had a right to live a life of dignity and the court had to consider the life of the child even after the lifetime of the parents.

Madras High Court Dismisses Former Minister KN Nehru's Plea To Review Order Directing FIR Based On ED Materials

Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 512

The Madras High Court, on Monday (October 26), dismissed a petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister KN Nehru, seeking review of an earlier order directing registration of FIR against him, based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a corruption case.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea.

ALSO READ: Direction To Register FIR Doesn't Determine Guilt; Prior Hearing Of Potential Accused Not Necessary: Madras High Court In KN Nehru's Case

Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Former Minister Anbil Mahesh In Alleged Corruption Case

Case Title: Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 513

The Madras High Court, on Monday (October 26), dismissed an anticipatory bail plea filed by former Education Minister Anbil Mahesh in connection with an alleged Rs 100 crore corruption case with respect to granting recognition to private schools.

Justice V Lakshminarayan dismissed the plea.

ALSO READ: Anticipatory Bail In Multi-Layered Corruption Cases Would Thwart Probe: Madras High Court While Denying Relief To Anbil Mahesh

Non-Hindus Wearing Religious Markers Can't Enter Agamic Temples Without Affirming 'Reverence' To Deity: Madras High Court

Case Title: Thangam Venkatesh v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 514

The Madras High Court has held that non-Hindus wearing religious markers cannot be permitted to enter the premises of Agamic temples in Tamil Nadu unless they affirm their reverence for the deity concerned through an undertaking in the format prescribed by the temple. The Court clarified that though Agamic injunctions restricting entry can no longer pass muster of the Constitution, those injunctions will hold good in respect of non-Hindus who do not sign the undertaking.

A division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P. Murugan was hearing a writ petition filed seeking enquiry against the violators of the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorization Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners sought to prevent individuals bearing other religious symbols and non-adherents from entering restricted temple sanctums.

OCI Registration Can Be Cancelled For Preaching Religion In India Without Prior Permission: Madras High Court

Case Title: John Daniel v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515

The Madras High Court recently held that a person's Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration can be cancelled if the person is involved in preaching or missionary activities without specifically seeking permission for the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 515]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus refused to grant relief to a man who had come to India on OCI registration and was engaged in missionary activities.

The court noted that as per Section 7D of the Citizenship Act 1955, the government could cancel the registration if the cardholder had violated any provisions of the Act or any other law as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. The court also noted that as per S.O.1050(E) under Section 7B, the Government had made it mandatory to obtain prior permission to undertake any missionary, public, mountaineering, or journalistic activities.

Madras High Court Waives ₹1 Lakh Costs Imposed On Lawyer Over Plea Against MLAs Resigning After Elections

Case Titile: S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 28) waived ₹1 lakh costs imposed on a lawyer for filing a plea seeking directions to make MLAs, who resigned soon after elections, reimburse their election expenses. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 516]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan was inclined to review the order, with respect to the imposition of costs, taking note of the petitioner's submission that he had intended to withdraw the plea but could not make submissions properly since he was appearing through video conferencing. The court was also inclined to do away with the cost considering that the petitioner was an advocate practicing in the High Court.

Right To Protest Can't Be Nipped In The Bud: Madras High Court Allows Villagers To Hold Sit-In At Cremation Ground

Case Title: M Anburaj v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517

The Madras High Court has permitted a "unique" sit-in protest by villagers of Sitharkadu village in Mayiladuthurai District in a crematorium, against government inaction with respect to the pollution caused by a state-run rice mill. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 517]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan held that the villagers had a right to protest, which was a form of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court also observed that by indulging in the protest and bringing the pollution to the attention of the authorities, the villagers were implementing their fundamental duty under Articles 51A(a) & 51A(g) of the Constitution. The court remarked that such a protest could not be nipped in the bud.

'We're Living In RTI Age': Madras High Court Says State Can't Withhold Material Needed To Prosecute Offenders

Case Title: M Abishek v The Senior Superintendent

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 518

The Madras High Court recently directed the Railway Mail Service to furnish CCTV footage to a man, who was trying to find the identity of a mischief-monger who was sending him fabricated complaints in his missing father's name.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that in this RTI age, clauses restricting the furnishing of materials could not be applied mechanically. The court added that in case of breach of right, a person is entitled to seek legal remedy. The court also added that if the identity of the person who is responsible for the breach could be established through materials available with the State, it is the State's duty to furnish those materials.

Investigation Can Be Transferred Even After Filing Of Final Report If It Was Not Conducted Properly: Madras High Court

Case Title: P Yuthe v State and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519

The Madras High Court recently held that an investigation can be transferred even after filing of the final report if it is found that the investigation was not conducted properly. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 519]

Justice S Alli observed that a chargesheet is only a product of the investigation and when the investigation itself was tainted, the chargesheet would be vitiated in law. The court added that such a tainted chargesheet violates the fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Selecting Temple Pontiff Is Purely Religious Function, HR&CE Dept Has No Right To Appoint Or Approve Appointment: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Veeraraghavan v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520

The Madras High Court recently remarked that the appointment of a pontiff in a temple is a purely religious function and not one having a secular or administrative character. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 520]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice P Murugan held that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department did not have a right to appoint the temple pontiff or to approve the appointment.

The court added that a Jeeyar (spiritual leader who manages the temple) was only a servant of the diety and not an employee of the temple. The bench said that the Jeeyar would not come under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the department, unless in cases of power misuse.

Madras High Court Directs Police To Monitor Online Content Targeting Judges, Bars Public Meetings Aimed At Intimidating Them

Case Title: R Karthikeyan v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521

The Madras High Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu not to permit any public meeting or march that aims to target, defame or intimidate a sitting judge. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 521]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that though citizens have a right to criticise a judgment, there should be a line between criticism and attacking the judge who authored it. The court made it clear that abusive, defamatory or caste-based attacks against a judge would not come within the purview of free speech under the Constitution.

The court added that while it could not impose a blanket ban on public discussions regarding court orders as the same would infringe democratic expression, the State was under an obligation to ensure that such public gatherings are not used to threaten the integrity of the judicial insititution.