NOMINAL INDEX

H Raja v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

Thelagam v The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

G Chitra v The Head Office and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

A v P, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

V Sundaram v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

Arulmigu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil v The Principal Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

V Kanal Kannan v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

V JM v J V, C.M.A.(MD)No.124 of 2022, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

MK Stalin v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

V Jeevakumar v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

Dr. S. Ponnusamy vs. The Director, The Directorate of Collegiate Education, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

Thavamanidevi v The Principle Secretary to Prime Minister, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

G Marimuthu v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

Tamil Rajendiran @ R.Rajendiran v/s The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

XXX v The Tamil Nadu Nurses And Midwives Council and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

APS v NIL, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

Chettinad Academy of Research and Education v The State of TN and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

State of Tamil Nadu v Chandran, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

S Anbumani v The Superintendent of Police and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

Kannan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Mohanraj and Another v The Commisisoner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

S v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

Raj G v The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

Dr R Karpagam v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

PP Mohamed and Others v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

P. Chandra Vs. The Principal District Judge, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

Balaji v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

Abu @ Syed Abuthagir and Others v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

Rajalakshmi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

Udhayakumar v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448

Suraj Goyal v CM Goyal, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449

A v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450

Raja SM v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451

A Jegannathan v The Chairman, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 452

Dhilipkumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453

M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

MRK Panneerselvam and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455

A v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456

Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457

K Suthan v The Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

M Pandiarajan v Andal and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459

V v A, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

Annamalai K v Piyush V, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 461

R v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

Tulir Charitable Trust v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 463

Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464

R Seenivasa Sethupathi v KR Periyakaruppan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 465

R v R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 466

M. Aashik Mohammed v The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 468

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) v G. Subramania Koushik, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 469

Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 470

Varaaki v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471

Regupathy S v Chinthamani C, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 472

The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board v. P Manikandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 473

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. The Secretary, St. Josephs College (Autonomous), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 474

Dr E. Subaya @ Esakki Subaya v Kanthimathinathan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 475

Seva Trust v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 476

REPORTS

Hate Speech Case: Madras High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of BJP's H Raja For Comments Against Periyar, Kanimozhi Karunanidhi

Case Title: H Raja v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 417

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 1), set aside the conviction of BJP leader H Raja in a hate speech case for his comments against Periyar and Kanimozhi Karunanidhi.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan allowed two appeals filed by the leader against his conviction by a special court in 2024. The court noted that there was no material to show that any disturbance was caused following Raja's comments.

Children Can Claim Reservation Through Mother's Caste: Madras High Court Rejects Puducherry Govt's Patriarchal Stand

Case Title: Thelagam v The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 418

The Madras High Court recently criticised the Puducherry Government for its policy that a child was to be given origin status for the grant of a community certificate only based on the father's nativity. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 418]

Justice Bharatha Chalravarthy held that the basis of reservation was the social disadvantage and stigma attached to the child and whether the same was patrilineal or matrilineal would make no difference for granting benefits.

The court rejected the stand taken by the Puducherry Government that our country, being a patriarchal society, caste should be traced patrilineally by birth and could not be traced matrilineally without any statutory provision.

The court observed that considering Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, there could be no assertion for the society to remain patriarchal. The court added that the belief that lineage can only be patriarchal since the woman would take the domicile of the man was a stereotype developed by the misogynistic society.

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied To Daughter Merely Because She Was Married Before Demise: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Chitra v The Head Office and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

The Madras High Court recently held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the daughter of the deceased merely because she was married before the date of death. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 419]

Justice C Kumarappan held that the authorities could not deny compassionate appointment, holding that the daughter was not wholly dependent on the deceased just because she was married before the date of death and living separately. The court held that such an approach would be wholly discriminatory and arbitrary.

Husband Working Away From Wife Can't Be Blamed For Her Adultery: Madras High Court Rejects Family Court's Reasoning, Grants Divorce

Case Title: A v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420

The Madras High Court recently criticised an order passed by a Family Court, refusing to grant divorce to the husband on the ground of wife's adultery and remarking that the husband, by not taking the wife to his place of employment, had enabled the adultery. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 420]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that while some radical feminists might applaud the order of the Family Court, it could not subscribe to such a view.

The bench held that it is not possible for a husband to always take the wife along to the place of employment.

Preventing SC Person's Temple Entry On Caste Grounds Constitutes 'Untouchability', Perpetrators Can Be Prosecuted: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Sundaram v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 421

The Madras High Court recently held that preventing a person from the Scheduled Caste community from entering temples would amount to practicing untouchability and would be violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 421]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that any person perpetrating such a practice would be liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Preventing Temples From Acquiring New Elephants

Case Title: Arulmigu Sri Subramania Swami Thirukoil v The Principal Secretary to Government

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 422

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of a single judge which had prevented the acquisition of elephants by temples or private individuals in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 422]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that bar imposed by the single judge was against the permission granted under The Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, framed under Section 64(2)(f) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, in which the Parliament itself had thought to permit acquisition of elephants subject to obtaining requisite permission.

Madras High Court Quashes Case Over 'X' Post Showing Pastor Dancing With Woman Abroad, Calling On Hindus To 'Think Over' Foreign Culture

Case Title: V Kanal Kannan v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 423

The Madras High Court has quashed a criminal case against the State President of the Art and Culture Wing of Hindu Mannani, who was booked for allegedly insulting religious feelings (Section 295A) and promoting enmity (Section 505) IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 423]

Noting that the video was meant for Hindus and not addressed to Christians, the bench of Justice R Vijayakumar observed:

"As could be seen from the charge sheet, a video has been uploaded by the petitioner in his Twitter account, wherein, a Pastor is dancing with a lady in a foreign country. There is no allegation that the video is a deepfake video. As far as the caption is concerned, the petitioner has stated that the said video depicts the original state of foreign culture and therefore, Hindus should think it over. The alleged caption is not meant for the Christians. It is addressed to the Hindus".

Father Boycotting Daughter's Wedding Caused Mental Anguish To Mother, Constitutes Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce

Case Title: V JM v J V, C.M.A.(MD)No.124 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 424

The Madras High Court has held that a father's decision to boycott his daughter's marriage and refusal to participate in the necessary rituals could cause considerable mental anguish to the mother, constituting a form of cruelty. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 424]

While dismissing the husband's appeal against the Family Court's order dissolving his marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the division bench of Justice G. R. Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi observed,

"The respondent had alleged that when their daughter was given in marriage, the appellant herein did not come forward to attend the necessary rituals. No doubt, the boycott of the marriage function by the father would definitely have caused considerable mental anguish to the mother. This would no doubt qualify as a form of cruelty".

'Not Maintainable': Madras High Court Dismisses MK Stalin's Plea Challenging TVK MLA's Kolathur Election Victory Over Alleged EVM Failures

Case Title: MK Stalin v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 425

The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 3) dismissed a writ petition filed by former Chief Minister and leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party MK Stalin, challenging the victory of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) VS Babu from the Kolathur constituency in the 2026 Legislative Assembly Elections.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea and held that it was not maintainable. On Monday (August 31), the bench had said that it would consider the maintainability of the plea.

ALSO READ: Allegations Of EVM Malfunction Can Be Raised Only In Election Petition, Not Writ: Madras High Court While Dismissing Stalin's Plea

Madras High Court Upholds Amendment Allowing District Judges To Be Appointed As TN Lokayukta Secretary

Case Title: V Jeevakumar v The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 426

The Madras High Court recently upheld an amendment brought in by the Tamil Nadu Government, allowing the appointment of serving and retired District Judges as Secretaries of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 426]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act only prescribed a minimum baseline of official seniority and status and did not create an absolute bar against appointing judicial officers who satisfy or exceed that requisite rank.

The court held that allowing District Judges to serve as Secretary on deputation or contract was entirely consistent with the scheme of the parent Act.

Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated During Service Can Continue After Retirement If Permitted By Service Rules: Madras HC

Case Title: Dr. S. Ponnusamy vs. The Director, The Directorate of Collegiate Education

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 427

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against an employee while in service can be continued and finalized after their retirement if the relevant service rules permit such continuation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 427]

“Policy Decision”: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Include OBC Category In Caste Census

Case Title: Thavamanidevi v The Principle Secretary to Prime Minister

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking to include the OBC category in the caste census. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel held that the matter was a policy decision of the government and the individual choice of the person giving data, as at times the person may not choose to state their caste. The court also noted that the new census procedure had already started and thus, the rules governing the same would prevail.

Different Faiths Can Co-Exist, Mere Law & Order Apprehension No Ground To Stop Church Near Temple: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Marimuthu v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the construction of a Christian Church near a Hindu Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429]

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar noted that the apprehension of law and order expressed by the petitioner could not be a ground to interfere with the Collector's order allowing the construction, especially when the field inspection by the appropriate authorities had not disclosed any disputes.

The court thus observed that the peaceful existence of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely based on unsustainable apprehension.

Can't Direct Equal Recitation Of Tamil Hymns Alongside Sanskrit At Meenakshi Temple Consecration In Absence Of Law: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tamil Rajendiran @ R.Rajendiran v/s The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed pleas seeking permission to perform Velvi Kunda Nigalvugal (sacred fire ritual) and permit recitation of Tamil spiritual hymns on an “equal footing” with Sanskrit during the upcoming Kumbabishegam (consecreation ceremony) at Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430]

Justice C. Saravanan held that a writ court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot make laws in the absence of an enabling statutory or delegated framework, observing that “it is for the Legislature or the Executive to take a call” on whether people from outside of the temple be allowed to participate in such events.

Madras High Court Directs Nurses Council To Record Transgender Man As 'Male' In All Records

Case Title: XXX v The Tamil Nadu Nurses And Midwives Council and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council to correct the records related to a transgender man who had undergone a sex-change operation, and to record his identity as male instead of transgender or transgender male. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431]

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the KS Puttaswamy judgment, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the right to construct own identity is part of the fundamental right to privacy and thus, the authorities were duty-bound to give effect to the privacy right of the man.

The court also took note of Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which provided that after a transgender person underwent surgery to change gender, and after submitting an application, the District Magistrate was to issue a certificate indicating change in gender. The section further states that any person holding such certificate of identity would be entitled to change the first name in all official documents relating to the identity of the person.

'Law Alone Not Enough, Judges Should Also Play Ball': Madras High Court Grants Mutual Consent Divorce After Family Court Declined Jurisdiction

Case Title: APS v NIL

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of a Family Court, Thanjavur, refusing to grant mutual divorce to a couple, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432].

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi remarked that though the Special Marriage Act provides for dissolution of marriage without much adjudication when there is consensus between the parties, the law alone was not enough and the judge should also play ball.

Environmental Clearance, Pollution Control Board Approval Not Mandatory For Essentiality Certificate Of Medical Institution:Madras High Court

Case Title: Chettinad Academy of Research and Education v The State of TN and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

The Madras High Court recently held that an Environmental Clearance Certificate and Approval from the Pollution Control Board are not necessary documents for obtaining an Essentiality Certificate for establishing a medical institution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433]

It may be noted that an Essentiality Certificate is issued by the State giving its opinion on whether a medical college is needed in a given area.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that though the certificate and approval were mandatory before constructing or commissioning a medical institution, they were not part of the qualifying criteria prescribed for obtaining an Essentiality certificate. The court thus held that lack of environmental clearance could not be a ground for the state to withhold the processing of the Essentiality Certificate.

Madras High Court Acquits Death Row Prisoner Accused Of Sexually Abusing 5 Minors, Says 'Draconian' POCSO Provisions Weaponised

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Chandran

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

The Madras High Court recently set aside the death sentence imposed on a man accused of sexually abusing 5 minor children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434]

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies, omissions and deficiencies which create a reasonable doubt. The court added that when such doubt arises, the rule of law requires acquittal.

The court also agreed with the contention of the accused that the testimonies of the victims and their parents were in the nature of a rehearsed or regurgitated version, which suggested tutoring or coaching.

The court also noted that the accused was not given a fair trial, which caused prejudice to him and affected his fundamental guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Madras High Court Asks Police To Permit Ganesh Idol For Chaturthi Celebration In Tiruppur, Says 'Worship Is A Fundamental Right'

Case Title: S Anbumani v The Superintendent of Police and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tiruppur Police to grant permission to the Hindu Munnani to install a Vinayagar (Ganesha) idol in connection with the Vinayaka Chaturthi celebration at Yasin Babu Nagar in Tiruppur.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the police to grant permission on a plea filed by the Executive Committee Member of the Hindu Munnani in Tiruppur.

The petitioner submitted that the organisation proposed to organise Sri Vinayagar Chaturthi festival and procession on September 14, 15, 16 and 17. He added that as part of the celebration, the organisation wanted to install and operate a sound system at the venue, and for the same, an application was submitted on August 11 this year. However, since the application was not acted upon, the organisation had approached the court.

Exhibiting Private Parts To Minor Child Not Sexual Assault But Sexual Harassment: Madras High Court Modifies Sentence

Case Title: Kannan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

The Madras High Court recently modified the sentence imposed on a man, accused of showing his male private organ to a minor boy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436].

Justice S Karthikeyan noted that the act attributed to the man was that he had shown his male organ to the child. The court remarked that such an act would not constitute sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act but would fall under sexual harassment under Section 11 of the Act.

The court thus noted that the man could not be accused under Section 7, but was instead guilty for offence of sexual harassment under Section 11, punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The court also noted that the man was a plumber and a first time offender, and was thus inclined to impose a lenient sentence on him.

Madras High Court Orders Closure Of TASMAC Shop Near National Highway, Says Shortest Distance Must Be Considered For Liquor Ban

Case Title: Mohanraj and Another v The Commisisoner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

The Madras High Court recently directed the District Collector (Trichy), District Manager (TASMAC Trichy), Assistant Commissioner (Prohibition and Excise Department), and the Divisional Excise Officer to close down a TASMAC shop after noting that it was only 55.7 meters away from the National Highway. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437]

Though it was argued that the distance to be travelled by vehicle to reach the TASMAC shop and a proposed recreational club was 1.4 km, which was within the limits prescribed by the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel held that while considering distance, the actual distance that a person needs to travel was insignificant and the aerial distance would be taken into consideration. The court thus noted that only the shortest distance will be considered for calculating the distance of the liquor shop from the National Highway.

Wife's Frequent Visits To Maternal Home, Pressure To Live Separately Despite Husband Being Only Son Amounted To Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: S v S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court recently held that a wife, forcing an only son to leave the joint family to set up a separate residence and going to her maternal house frequently without reason, would constitute cruelty on the husband. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438]

The bench of Justice PT Asha and Justice N Mala thus refused to interfere with an order of a Family Court, granting divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty.

The court remarked that the relationship of a husband and wife was reciprocal and could not be dealt as per the dictation of either of the spouses. The court added that when the wife visits the matrimonial home frequently, without any valid reason, it creates a sense of insecurity in the husband's mind, as he may be left with a fear of the wife leaving him.

Madras High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Award Of Tender To Joyalukkas For CM Vijay's Newborn Gold Ring Scheme

Case Title: Raj G v The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the acceptance of a bid from Joy Alukkas and the awarding of the tender to the jewellery company for the CM Vijay's Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439]

The Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam is a scheme introduced by the TVK Government to distribute 1 gram gold rings of 22 carat purity to newborn children in government hospitals.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the petitioner was not one of the tenderers and had no personal stake in the award. Highlighting the limited power of the court to interfere in tender processes, the court said that when the other tenderers who had participated in the process did not have any grievance, the court could not set aside the tender.

Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Implementation Of Guidelines For Idol Immersion During Ganesh Chaturthi

Case Title: Dr R Karpagam v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the State to take strict and time-bound measures and ensure that the guidelines with respect to idol immersion issued by the Central Pollution Control Board are followed during the Vinayaga Chaturthi celebrations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan refused to entertain the plea filed by a social activist, noting that the National Green Tribunal was already considering the issue. The court thus dismissed the plea as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedies before the appropriate forum.

Raising Slogans In Support Of Palestine Not Enough To Make Assembly 'Unlawful': Madras High Court Quashes Case

Case Title: PP Mohamed and Others v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against a group of men for assembling and raising slogans in support of Palestine and against the genocide being perpetrated against its people. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the men had not shown any criminal force or committed any mischief or crime or tried to take possession of property or wrongfully restrained someone. Thus, finding no reason to continue the prosecution, the court quashed the case against them.

Conversion Of Charge From Serious To Non Serious Provision Shall Not Relate Back To Date Of Charge, Cant Consider For Promotion: Madras High court

Case Name : P.Chandra Vs. The Principal District Judge, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice M.Dhandapani and Justice N.Dilip Kumar held that the conversion of a disciplinary charge from Rule 17B to Rule 17A does not relate back to the original charge memo date, and the currency of a censure punishment bars promotion consideration under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Service Act, 2016. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442]

Madras High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against Man Accused Of Pelting Stone At Dog That Bit Him, Finds No Evidence Indicating Dog Was Injured

Case Title: Balaji v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case lodged against a man who was accused of pelting stones at a dog that bit him. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 443]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that though the man was accused of pelting stones, there was "no evidence" to show that the dog had suffered injury. On the other hand, the man had lodged a complaint to substantiate that he was bitten by the dog.

The court thus noted that before registering the case, the police should have obtained prior permission from the jurisdictional court, which the police failed to do. The court thus held that the case was nothing but an abuse of process of law and was inclined to quash it.

Witness Protection In UAPA Cases Can't Be Prosecution's Sword To Curtail Right Of Cross-Examination: Madras High Court Issues Directions

Case Title: Abu @ Syed Abuthagir and Others v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

The Madras High Court recently held that the provision of witness protection under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is aimed at protecting the witness from any threat and should not be used as a sword in the prosecution's hand to curtail the accused's right to cross-examination.

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan added that whenever the prosecution files an application for witness protection, the court should not issue directions mechanically. The judge added that the court was to first examine the gravity of the threat, whether life of the witness was in danger and whether the threat would only continue till he deposes before the court, and then take a decision.

Second Wife Unaware Of Husband's First Marriage Can't Be Prosecuted For Cruelty, Bigamy: Madras High Court

Case Title: Rajalakshmi v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

The Madras High Court recently held that a woman who was unaware of her husband's first marriage could not be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS. The court also noted that the second wife will not fall within the definition of “relative of husband” and cannot be prosecuted under Section 85 of BNS (corresponding to Section 498A of the IPC).[2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 445]

Justice N Ramesh held that the provision is confined to a person who is related to the husband by blood, marriage or adoption. The court held that the second wife, who was unaware of the husband's existing first marriage, would not be a husband's relative. The court added that in such cases, both the women were deceived by the husband and are not accused and victim.

Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To TVK MLA Sengottaiyan's Election Over Alleged Defect In Poll Affidavit Attestation

Case Title: KA Sengottaiyan v VB Prabhu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446

The Madras High Court recently rejected an election petition challenging the victory of TVK's Sengottaiyan from the Gobichettipalayam constituency, noting that the expiry of the license of the notary who attested the affidavit filed along with the nomination proper was not a ground to challenge elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 446]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that merely alleging that Form 26 was attested by a Notary whose certificate had expired could not constitute a complete cause of action under the Representation of People Act, without establishing that the violation materially affected the result of the election.

High Speed Alone Not Enough To Prove Rash, Negligent Driving: Madras High Court

Case Title: Udhayakumar v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

The Madras High Court recently held that driving at high speed alone is not enough to prove that the driving was rash or negligent to prove offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447]

Justice G Arul Murugan observed that criminality could not be presumed and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Madras High Court Dismisses TVK Candidate's Plea Challenging Victory Of DMK's EV Velu, Says No Triable Issue Disclosed

Case Title: EV Velu v Arul Arumugam and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448

The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by TVK's Arul Arumugam challenging the victory of DMK's EV Velu from the Tiruvannamalai Assembly Constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 448]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that no clear and triable issue was disclosed in the plea and was inclined to allow Velu's plea to reject the election petition.

Father Lacking Moral Support From Son Who Acquires His Property Can't Claim Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Unless Destitute: Madras High Court

Case Title: Suraj Goyal v CM Goyal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449

The Madras High Court recently held that a son failing to support his father after obtaining his self-acquired property by itself was not a ground to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC when the father is not living in vagrancy or destitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 449]

Justice Sunder Mohan observed that though one might sympathise with the father for the broken relationship with the children, he could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC unless the conditions were satisfied. The court said that no amount to money could compensate for the lack of moral or family support that a person is entitled to in told age.

'Low Moral Fibre': Madras High Court Denies Mother Custody Of Minor Children

Case Title: A v B

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450

The Madras High Court recently denied custody of two minor children to their mother after noting that the woman had a low moral fibre and her company will be detrimental to the well being of the children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 450]

The bench of Justice PT Asha and Justice N Mala noted that in custody cases, well being of the minor child had to be given priority and such well-being was not limited to physical well-being but also moral and religious.

The court remarked that in our culture, mother was placed above god but in the present case, the mother had forgotten her status and duty as a mother, to inculcate good behaviour to the children right from the time she breastfeeds them.

Letter To Chief Minister, PIL Without Proper Complaint Won't Advance Case: Madras High Court In Plea Seeking Probe Into Missing Temple Idols

Case Title: Raja SM v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking a CBI probe in connection with the theft of two idols in the Arulmighu Kalatheeswarar Abirami Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 451]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel noted that the petitioner should have first filed a proper complaint before the appropriate investigating agency and then approach the court if no action had been taken. The court remarked that though the petitioner had sent a letter to the Chief Minister's cell, it was not enough to advance the petitioner's case.

Madras High Court Upholds Invalidation Of Man's ST Certificate, Says Retirement Can't Protect Benefits Secured On False Claim

Case Title: A Jegannathan v The Chairman

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 452

The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the State Level Scrutiny Committee's finding that the community certificate held by a Chennai Port Trust employee was bogus, 40 years after his appointment.

Though the employee had alleged that he was not given an opportunity of hearing, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the proceedings had started immediately after his appointment, way back in 1983, and the petitioner had been dragging on the issue by raising one or the other hyper-technical plea.

The court noted that it would be an abuse of the process of law if the matter is remanded back even after it was abundantly clear that the employee had secured the post falsely.

The court reiterated that fraud is anathema to every principle of law, and obtaining reservation benefits based on such fake documents is fraud on the Constitution. The court held that technical grounds and repeated remands could not aid such fraud.

NDPS Act | Arrest, Remand Vitiated If Accused Not Informed Quantity Of Contraband Seized From Him: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dhilipkumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453

The Madras High Court recently held that an arrest or seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is vitiated if the accused is not informed about the quantity of contraband seized from him or the provisions under which he is charged. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 453]

Justice N Ramesh thus granted bail to an accused, accused of carrying 25kg of Ganja. The court noted that the accused was not informed of the quantity of Ganja seized from him at the time of arrest. The court remarked that when the quantity was not informed, there is a real and demonstrable prejudice, as the accused would not know whether he is answering a charge which carried a punishment of 6 months or 10 years.

Fair Complexion, Tall Height, Speaking In Tamil & English Not Enough To Prove That Person Follows Christianity: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Ravikumar v District Level Vigilance Committee and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 454

The Madras High Court recently held that fair complexion of a person, tall height, good physique, and proficiency in Tamil and English alone are not enough to prove that they practice Christianity, when no evaluation in this regard is conducted by the anthropologist. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 254]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus set aside an order of the District Level Vigilance Committee holding that the community certificate held by a man was not genuine and that he did not belong to the Adi Dravidar Community, a Scheduled Caste community.

The court noted that the reasoning given by the committee did not have any relevance and was unsupported by any evaluation by the Anthropologist.

Madras High Court Refuses To Discharge Former Minister MRK Panneerselvam In Corruption Case

Case Title: MRK Panneerselvam and Others v The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 22), dismissed a plea filed by former Minister MRK Panneerselvam seeking discharge in a corruption case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 455]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan dismissed the plea. The court had previously dispensed with Panneerselvam and his family's appearance before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore.

ALSO READ: Amassing Disproportionate Assets Not Part Of Discharging Official Duty, Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Not Necessary: Madras High Court

Madras High Court Permits Sri Lankan Couple To Undergo IVF Though Wife Crossed 50 Yrs, Says Age Limit Based On Living Conditions In India

Case Title: A v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456

The Madras High Court has permitted a Sri Lankan couple, settled in the United Kingdom to undergo In Vitro Fertilization treatment (IVF) in India even though the wife had crossed 50 years of age. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 456]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the upper age limit of 50 years under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act was fixed, considering the average life expectancy in India and the living conditions in the country.

The court noted that in the present case, the couple had come to India only for performing the medical procedure and intended to go back to their own country where they were going to bring up the child.

Article 212 Bars Challenge To Internal Proceedings Of Legislative Assembly: Madras High Court On Mekedatu Dam Resolution

Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the All India Anna Dravida Kazhagam (AIADMK) party challenging a part of the resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on June 19, urging the Union Government to setup fresh tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, with respect to the Mekedatu Dam issue.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the party did not have any objection to the content of the resolution but had only objected to the manner in which the part, urging the Union Government to set up a tribunal, was introduced in the resolution.

The court noted that the challenge, in its core, was about the compliance of procedure as per Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. The court highlighted that Article 212 of the Constitution explicitly barred courts from interfering in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly merely on irregularity of procedure.

ALSO READ: MLAs Who Stay Silent During Assembly Vote Can't Challenge It Later: Madras High Court

'We Cannot Legislate': Madras High Court Rejects Plea To Recover Bye-Election Costs From MLAs Who Resign Soon After Elections

Case Title: K Suthan v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking to create a mechanism to ensure financial accountability of elected representatives who voluntarily and prematurely resign from their seats without legally recognized compelling circumstances [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 458].

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the relief, seeking to introduce an Election Expenditure Security to recover the cost of a bye-election and to introduce a cooling-off period to prevent elected representatives who resign soon after the elections from contesting in the same constituency, could not be granted as it was for the legislature to bring a law to that effect.

The court noted that it could only interpret and enforce laws that exist or fill an interstitial gap by laying down guidelines until the Legislature steps in. The court added that it could not direct the legislature to pass laws on a particular subject. The court remarked that in the present plea, the petitioner was asking the court to lay down two new disqualifications in the electoral law, which was a matter of legislative policy and not judicial direction.

Exclusive Possession, Receipt Of Income Supports Presumption Of Other Co-Owners' Ouster: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Pandiarajan v Andal and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459

The Madras High Court recently held that exclusive possession of property by one co-owner and enjoyment of rent and income from the property would lead to a presumption of ouster with respect to the other co-owners. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 459]

Justice G Jayachandran relied upon the decisions of a division bench of the Madras High Court in 1970 and the decision of the Privy Council in 1919 and held that if the co-owner has been in exclusive possession, it would be legitimate for the court to raise the presumption of ouster.

The court thus denied relief to two women in a suit for partition, claiming 1/3^rd share each in the family properties. The court noted that the women had mentioned the properties incorrectly in the plaint, as some properties had been sold by their father during his lifetime. The court also noted that the parties had failed to implead the granddaughters (their brother's daughters) to whom some property had been divided. All these facts, in the court's opinion, added force to the plea of ouster by the brother.

Women Becoming Career-Oriented Taking A Toll On Marriages; Husbands Becoming Homemakers May Be A Remedy: Madras High Court

Case Title: V v A

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 460

The Madras High Court recently observed that with women increasingly becoming career-oriented, marriage is not proving to be a “win-win proposition” for some career women, particularly those in the IT sector and other professions.

The Court noted that some women may view marriage as an impediment to their career prospects and choose not to marry.

A bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi noted that while traditionally the husband was expected to provide financial resources and the wife took care of the domestic sphere, the roles have been changing over the last few decades, with women increasingly pursuing careers.

The Court observed that this change was “taking a toll in many relationships” and suggested that “if there can be house wives, there can be house husbands also”, adding, “Let this become a new normal.”

Criminal Law No Tool To Stifle Legitimate Political Dissent: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Annamalai For Alleged Provocative Speech

Case Title: Annamalai K v Piyush V

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 461

The Madras High Court on Thursday (September 24) quashed a case against former IPS officer and President of We The Leaders Foundation, K Annamalai, for his alleged provocative speech involving freedom fighter Muthuramalinga Thevar.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that there was no material to show that Annamalai had intended to promote communal disharmony through his speech. The court also noted that there was no material to show that the speech was capable of inciting violence, promoting communal disharmony or disturbing public tranquillity. The court had previously stayed the trial in the case.

The court thus remarked that criminal process cannot be used to settle political scores or to stifle legitimate political dissent. In the present case, noting that there were no foundational materials, the court opined that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used for purposes other than the bona fide enforcement of law.

POCSO Act | Absence Of Genital Injury, Sperm Don't Disprove Sexual Abuse Allegations: Madras High Court Upholds Stepfather's Life Sentence

Case Title: R v Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462

The Madras High Court recently upheld the life sentence imposed on a stepfather for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 462]

The bench of Justice AD Jagadish Chandira and Justice B Murugesan rejected the step-father's evidence that there was no medical evidence to suggest sexual assault. The court observed that medical evidence was only supportive and not determinative. The court added that the absence of visible genital injury, the absence of spermatozoa on the dress of the victim, absence of a damaged hymen would not lead to an automatic conclusion of absence of sexual abuse or sexual assault.

More To Life Than TRP Ratings: Madras High Court Restrains Media From Publishing Veeramani POCSO Case Videos

Case Title: Tulir Charitable Trust v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 463

The Madras High Court, on Friday (September 25), restrained media outlets from publishing or broadcasting any video that touches upon the POCSO case registered against granite baron Veermani alias Gem Granite Veeramani.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan orally remarked that publishing such material prematurely would have a chilling effect on the other victim children, who might not be willing to come forward for the investigation.

The court asked the news channels and others to show sensitivity in the issue and hold debates without telecasting the explicit videos in connection with the case. The court remarked that some things were more important in life than TRP ratings.

Tender Eligibility Dispute Can't Be Treated As Fraud To Blacklist Contractor: Madras High Court

Case Title: Eco Protection Engineers Pvt. Ltd v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464

The Madras High Court recently held that a company participating in a tender cannot be debarred or backlisted for a genuine misconception about the tender conditions. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 464]

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that a misconception about the tender conditions cannot be inferred as a fraudulent practice, necessitating debarring or blacklisting. The court observed that black listing and debarring result in serious adverse consequences and must be resorted to sparingly and applied strictly.

Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging One-Vote Victory Of TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathi

Case Title: R Seenivasa Sethupathi v KR Periyakaruppan and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 465

The Madras High Court, on Monday (September 28), rejected an election petition filed by DMK's Periakaruppan challenging the victory of TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote in Tirupattur Constituency. 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 465

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Sethupathi seeking to reject Periakaruppan's election petition.

Periakaruppan had alleged that postal votes that should have been sent to No. 158 Tiruppattur assembly constituency were wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency due to a similar constituency name and were subsequently rejected. He alleged that instead of rejecting the postal votes, they should have been sent to the correct constituency and counted. He submitted that if such postal votes were counted for No. 158 Tiruppattur constituency, the one-vote margin would not have occurred and Periakaruppan would have received a majority. He thus argued that the election procedures were not followed as per law.

Every Disagreement Between Wife And In-Laws Not Cruelty: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce To Husband

Case Title: R v R

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 466

The Madras High Court has held that every disagreement that a spouse has with parents-in-law cannot be termed as cruelty committed by that spouse against the other spouse. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 466]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi thus refused to grant divorce to a husband on allegations of cruelty.

Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Dismissal Of Prison Warden Who Served Ganja To Inmates

Case Title: M. Aashik Mohammed v The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the dismissal of a prison warden who was accused of supplying Ganja to prison inmates. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467]

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that a prison officer had a duty to prevent the introduction of any prohibited articles to the prisoners. In the present case, the court noted that by serving Ganja to the prisoner, the warden had committed a grave misconduct and violation of discipline expected from an officer. The court thus held that the dismissal from service was not disproportionate.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Asking MLAs Who Resigned After Election To Reimburse Election Expenses; Imposes Costs

Case Title: S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 468

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 29), dismissed a plea seeking a direction on the MLAs who resigned soon after elections to reimburse the election expenses.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the petitioner for seeking the same relief, which had already been dismissed by the court. The court remarked that the plea, styled as a public interest litigation, was nothing but a publicity litigation and was filed with ulterior motive.

Madras High Court Refuses To Recall Order Directing Micro/Nano Plastic Warning Labels On Water, Sugar, Salt; Says Consumer Has Right To Know

Case Title: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) v G. Subramania Koushik

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 469

The Madras High Court has refused to review its decision mandating warning labels on plastic/PET drinking water bottles and salt/sugar packets with respect to the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics.

The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a review application filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Pet Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE), and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association (FPDWMA).

The court noted that while studies were on the way to test how far the human body could withstand and tolerate micro/nano plastic, its adverse effects were not disputed. The court thus held that the direction was the barest essential requirement at the stage to enable the consumers to make an informed choice.

Kavin Honour Killing Case: Madras High Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Cop Couple, Says Materials Do Not Disclose Offences Alleged

Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 470

The Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet filed by the CB-CID against the cop couple, Saravanan and Krishnakumari, accused in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu in 2025.

Veeramani POCSO Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Order CBI Probe, Says SIT Should Be Given Breathing Time

Case Title: Varaaki v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 30) refused to order CBI probe into the POCSO case involving granite baron R Veeramani. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the Tamil Nadu government had formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the offence and the SIT should be given a breathing time to collect all the evidence in connection with the case.

The court also added that the Tamil Nadu police did not have a crystal ball or a magic wand to get all the evidence at once, adding that the SIT should be permitted to carry on the investigation.

Madras High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Election Victory Of Former DMK Minister S Regupathy

Case Title: Regupathy S v Chinthamani C

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 472

The Madras High Court has rejected a plea challenging the victory of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's S Regupathy from Thirumayam Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2026 assembly elections.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Regupathy to reject the election petition moved by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate from the constituency, Chintamani.

It may be noted that Chintamani had lost to Regupathy by a margin of 1492 votes. The court noted that all the allegations raised by Chintamani were vague and unsupported. Thus, the court was inclined to reject the plea.

Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case Is Not Suppression If Candidate Had No Knowledge Of It, & Was Ultimately Exonerated: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board v. P Manikandan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 473

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice M.Dhandapani and Justice N.Dilip Kumar held that non-disclosure of a criminal case does not amount to suppression of information when the candidate had no knowledge of the case and was ultimately exonerated.

It was held by the Bench that the objective should not be merely to determine whether a person is technically involved in a pending criminal case, but to ensure that a young citizen who has not been found guilty is given a fair opportunity to build his life and participate meaningfully in society. The law must protect the legitimate interests of public administration while simultaneously preventing the criminal process, particularly a prolonged or ultimately unfounded criminal proceeding, from becoming an instrument that permanently destroys the career, livelihood and future prospects of the youth.

Minority Aided Institutions Can Appoint Teachers To Sanctioned Vacant Posts Without Prior Permission: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. The Secretary, St. Josephs College (Autonomous)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 474

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that minority institutions under Article 30 have the right to fill already-sanctioned vacant teaching posts without prior approval, subject to qualifications and procedural rules, and approval for grant-in-aid cannot be denied arbitrarily.

Madras High Court Rejects Esakki Subaya's Plea Against Election Case, But Paves Way For Bye-Polls In Ambasamudram Constituency

Case Title: Dr E. Subaya @ Esakki Subaya v Kanthimathinathan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 475

The Madras High Court has refused to reject an election petition challenging the victory of former AIADMK MLA Esakki Subaya from the Ambasamudram constituency during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 475]

Justice PB Balaji noted that the petitioner, a voter from the constituency, had laid down foundational facts, which could be proved only if the parties go for trial. Thus, the court rejected Subaya's argument that the petition lacked cause of action.

The court, however, paved the way for a bye-election in the constituency as the court struck down a relief sought by the voter to declare the candidate who came second as the winner. The court noted that such a relief could be granted only when the constituency had two candidates and not when there were more than 2 candidates, like in the present case.

Madras High Court Directs State To Frame SOP Regulating Captive Elephants At Temple Festivals; Mandates Health & Safety Checks

Case Title: Seva Trust v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 476

The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for integrating captive elephants in religious ceremonies. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 476]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that elephants hold a significant place in the ancient temple customs, and their use in religious ceremonies could not be left in a legal vacuum. The court highlighted that the traditions should strictly comply with the constitutional values and the State's fundamental duty to show compassion for living creatures.