NOMINAL INDEX

Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

V v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

S Divya v The Registrar General and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

V Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

All India Private Educational Institutions Association v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

EV Velu v The State of Tamil Nadu and EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307

Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309

Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310

Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312

Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

Suji @ Kasi v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316

The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

Dr Ponraj v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

M v B, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

Krishnamoorthy v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

Mugilan v The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330

Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331

Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

P. v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

R. Pradeep Kumar v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341

S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343

EV Velu v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344

B Jagadeeshwaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345

Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346

Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347

T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348

Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

XXX v The Director General of Police and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350

U v M, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

Senthil Balaji v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354

Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355

J. Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356

R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

Mandai @ Manogaran v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paulpandiyan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R v J, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hinduism Is An Inclusive Faith: Madras High Court Asks Authorities To Permit Temple Entry To American Woman Who Embraced Hinduism

Case Title: Laura Frances Iyengar v TN HR and CE Department

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287

The Madras High Court recently directed the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and the authorities of the Sri Arulmighu Abishta Varatharajaperumal Temple in Thanjavur District to permit temple entry to an American woman who had converted to Hinduism. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 287]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the conduct of the woman clearly established her adherence to Hinduism. Thus, the court said that the woman was to be treated as a Hindu and not be denied recognition merely because of her Christian name. The court added that all rights and obligations that were available to a Hindu woman devotee would be applicable to the woman also.

The court also observed that Hinduism was an inclusive and accommodating faith which did not prescribe any mandatory formal ceremony of conversion.

Madras High Court Sets Aside Recruitment Of 17 Personal Assistants To Judges, Says Those With Even 'Zero Marks' Appointed

Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), set aside the appointment of 17 Personal Assistants to its Judges, after noting that the entire selection process was arbitrary and without consideration of merit. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 288]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that the service Rules were relaxed to accommodate in-service candidates who did not possess the required eligibility, instead of resorting to direct recruitment.

The court remarked that this would send a wrong message to the public, especially when the Rules clearly provide for direct recruitment in case the in-service candidates did not qualify for recruitment.

"PIL Not To Vindicate Personal Animosity”: Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Plea For CBI Probe Against TN Vigilance Chief

Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

The Madras High Court has dismissed the plea filed by YouTuber journalist Shankar @ Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against the current head of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Arun IPS, in light of the recent remarks against him by the High Court. The court had reserved orders in the plea earlier today. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that public interest litigation is a tool intended to reach marginalised and vulnerable segments of society and not a tool for vindicating personal animosity.

Madras High Court Dismisses Former Minister Ponmudi's Plea Against Magistrate Taking Cognisance Of Hate Speech Complaint

Case Title: K Ponmudi v. Uma Anandan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 2nd), dismissed a plea filed by former DMK Minister K Ponmudi challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Georgetown, taking cognisance of a hate speech complaint filed against him by BJP Councillor Uma Anandan. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 290]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea, effectively refusing to interfere with the private complaint filed by Anandan. The court had reserved orders on the plea on June 25th.

ALSO READ: Ponmudi's Speech Reveals Deliberate Intention To Wound Hindus 'Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court While Refusing To Quash Hate Speech Case

Questioning Paternity Of Child, Asking Wife To Undergo DNA Test Is Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce

Case Title: V v. S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291

While affirming an order of dissolution of marriage, the Madras High Court recently held that a husband questioning the paternity of child born in marriage and asking the wife to undergo a DNA examination would be mental cruelty on the wife. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 291]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that when the wife came to the matrimonial home after the birth of the child, the husband had questioned her on who the father of the child was. The bench held that such a question would have shocked the wife to the extreme and it directly affected her honour and self-respect.

Madras High Court Orders District Collector To Probe Alleged Caste-Based Exclusion From Temple Procession

Case Title: Bakiyaraj v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292

While dealing with a plea to ensure that a temple procession is carried out through an area predominantly inhabited by members of Scheduled Caste community, the Madras High Court recently observed that constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure that religious practices, customs, etc do not result in caste-based exclusion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 292]

Justice Victoria Gowri observed that Article 17 of the Constitution does not merely prohibit untouchability but any disability imposed on a person solely on the basis of caste.

The court highlighted that the right to practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The court observed that no religious practice or customary usage could survive constitutional scrutiny if it violated equality, dignity or fraternity.

Madras High Court Keeps In Abeyance Order Staying Suspension Of DVAC Inspector Accused Of Seeking Bribe

Case Title: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v G Vimala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 293

The Madras High Court has kept in abeyance a single judge's order staying the suspension of an Inspector of Police (DVAC). The single judge had stayed the suspension order, noting that the order passed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department was prima facie motivated.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan kept in abeyance the stay order after being informed that the single judge had passed the order solely on the basis of submissions made by the Inspector, without verifying the facts.

"Have To Respect The Chief Minister": Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To DMK MLA Over Remarks On CM Joseph Vijay

Case Title: Anitha R Radhakrishnan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 3rd), dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by DMK MLA Anita R Radhakrishnan in a case registered against him for making objectionable statements against the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Joseph Vijay. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 294]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. During the course of the hearing, the judge orally remarked that Radhakrishnan, being a member of the legislative assembly, should not have made such statements.

The court also orally remarked that the State of Tamil Nadu has been seeing leaders who have come from the cine industry since 1967. The court added that these leaders were elected by the people, and in such circumstances, the statement made by Radhakrishnan was unwarranted.

Madras High Court Directs Police Protection For AIADMK Leader CV Shanmugam, Notes Continuous Life Threats

Case Title: C. Ve Shanmugam v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295

The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to provide police protection to AIADMK MLA CV Shanmugam in light of continuous life threats faced by him. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 295].

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan held that Shanmugam has made out a prima facie case for grant of police protection, to protect his life and limb.

Woman Govt Employee Entitled To Only 12 Weeks' Maternity Leave For Third Child: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Divya v The Registrar General and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

The Madras High Court recently held that a woman government employee can be given only twelve weeks of maternity leave for the birth of the third child. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 296]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Sakthivel observed that a recent Government Order issued by the Tamil Nadu government, which amended Fundamental Rule 101(A) of the Tamil Nadu Government, applicable to government employees, was in line with the order of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi v Government of Tamil Nadu, which had restricted the benefit to 12 weeks.

Noting that the High Court could not grant relief which was over and beyond the terms and conditions of the Fundamental Rules, the court dismissed the plea of a woman, seeking 365 days' maternity leave for her third child.

Call For Separate Tamil Nadu Nation Not Sedition; Will Be Seen Only As Mental Health Issue: Madras High Court

Case Title: Keera @ Moorthi and Another v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297

While quashing a sedition case registered against a publishing house for publishing a book which contained a statement that Tamil Nadu should be a separate nation, the Madras High Court held that such a statement could not be seen as hatred against the nation or the government in the present day. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 297]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that India is unified by heart and soul, and such statements could at best cause annoyance in the present social milieu, and the person making such a statement would only be seen as a person having mental health issues. The court added that such a sentence, in the present day, would not excite any hatred among the public.

Madras High Court Imposes Cost On Joint Secretaries Of External And Home Affairs Ministry For Failing To Assist Court

Case Title: Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Joint Secretary of the External Affairs Ministry and the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs for failing to assist the court in a habeas corpus plea, in connection with the release of a man who was convicted in a Narcotics case in Sri Lanka. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298].

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the man had been repatriated to India and his sentence had been adapted to one under the Indian Law. However, there was no material to show that consent was obtained from Sri Lanka before the same.

The court also noted that despite repeated enquiries, the counsel was not able to show any communication, and in the absence of materials, the court could not infer that the Sri Lankan government had accepted or informed about the adoption of the sentence under Indian law. The court thus deemed it fit to impose costs.

'Every Govt Declares It Is Against Corruption, But Reality Has Been Otherwise': Madras High Court Calls For Independent Vigilance Commissioner

Case Title: The Commissioner and Others v M Rathinam and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299

The Madras High Court has recently stressed the need to appoint a separate Vigilance Commissioner to advise the government on administrative challenges and steps to be taken to prevent corruption in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 299]

The court added that corruption can be eradicated only through consistent action, and this could be achieved only by strengthening the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that at present, there was no separate Vigilance Commissioner for the State of Tamil Nadu and a senior officer heading a major sensitive department was holding the post of Vigilance Commissioner. The court remarked that a government which aims to be corruption-free should have an independent Vigilance Commissioner.

Immoral Trafficking Act | Safeguards Under Section 15(2) Not Mandatory For Search In Commercial Premises Like Spas: Madras High Court

Case Title: Y Gnana Ganesh and Another v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300

The Madras High Court has observed that the provisions related to search provided under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are mandatory only if the place to be searched is a residential premises. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 300]

Justice R Vijayakumar held that the mandatory provisions of search without a warrant would not be mandatory when the search is to be conducted at a commercial space.

The court also added that the object of the provision is to protect the privacy of the victim and to prevent disrepute that may be caused to the inmates of a building where a search was to be conducted as per the Act. The court made it clear that the provision is not meant to protect the right of the accused. The court thus refused to quash an FIR on the basis that the search was conducted without witnesses.

'Throwing Trash On Bharat Mata Is A Direct Challenge To Sovereignty': Madras High Court On Illegal Waste Imports

Case Title: M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

The Madras High Court recently observed that any person who knowingly aids in importing trash to the country is not just committing an offence under the Environment Protection Act but also directly challenging the country's sovereignty. The court added that there could not be a more aggravated form of deshdroh than throwing trash on the country. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301]

Talking about “waste colonialism”, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that when developed countries dump solid municipal waste to developing countries, it not only violates international treaty obligations but also results in serious environmental degradation.

Social Boycott Over Inter-Caste Marriage: Madras High Court Orders Police Protection, RDO Inquiry

Case Title: Pazhaniyappan v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

The Madras High Court has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (Mayiladuthurai) to enquire into a complaint filed by a man alleging that he was socially boycotted by his villagers after he performed an inter-caste marriage. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 302]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan asked the RDO to conduct an enquiry by issuing notice to the village headmen and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks. The court also directed the police to complete the investigation in a case registered based on the man's complaint and to give him police protection.

Advocates Can't File Writ Petitions Seeking Out-Of-Turn Listing Of Cases, Equity Demands Equal Treatment Of Litigants: Madras High Court

Case Title: LK Charles Alexander v The Registrar General and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303

The Madras High Court recently held that an advocate cannot file a writ petition seeking out-of-turn listing of his cases before the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 303]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that if every advocate is allowed to file such pleas against the registry, the court would be flooded with litigation, paralysing the administration of justice.

The court added that though it was sympathetic to the professional anxieties of the lawyer who was answerable to the client, a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be used as an administrative tool to bypass the established listing procedure.

Election Petition Challenging Victory On Grounds Except Corruption Becomes Infructuous After Expiry Of Assembly Term: Madras High Court

Case Title: V Ramu v Duraimurugan and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304

The Madras High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the victory of former DMK Minister Duraimurugan from Katpadi assembly constituency during the 2021 assembly elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 304].

While dismissing the plea filed by the AIADMK candidate in the constituency, V Ramu, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan observed that the plea had become infructuous as the term of the Assembly had already ended and the new government has been formed.

The judge noted that when an election petition was filed on grounds other than corruption, the petition would be rendered infructuous after the expiry of the term of the assembly. The court noted that since both Duraimurugan and Ramu had lost in the fresh elections and both had lost the MLA seat, the plea had become infructuous.

Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To DMK's Senthil Balaji Accused Of Offering ₹35 Crore Bribe To TVK MLA

Caste Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 8) granted anticipatory bail to DMK MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother Ashok Kumar in a case lodged over allegations of offering ₹35 crore bribe to a TVK MLA in an alleged attempt to influence his vote for Assembly Speaker. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 305]

The court granted anticipatory bail to Balaji and his brother, subject to certain conditions. The court further asked the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer daily until further orders and to cooperate with the investigation.

Private Schools Are Not 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act, But Must Display Fee Structure As Per State Rules: Madras High Court

Case Title: All India Private Educational Institutions Association v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306

The Madras High Court has held that private unaided schools are bound to display their fee structure at the entrance. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 306]

Relying on the provisions of the Private Schools Act and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, Justice M Dhandapani held that the Rules mandate displaying details of infrastructure available, staff strength, pupils strength, seats available for each standard, fees fixed and other facilities available if any, and the same should be updated in the notice board.

The court thus observed that though private schools are not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, they cannot wriggle out of their responsibility to display the fee details, which they are mandated to do as per the Act and Rules.

Madras High Court Stays Look Out Circular Against Former Minister EV Velu, Asks Vigilance Dept To Not Take Coercive Action Till July 28

Case Title: EV Velu v The State of Tamil Nadu and EV Velu v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307

The Madras High Court, on Thursday (July 9), stayed a lookout circular issued against former DMK Minister EV Velu in connection with a Vigilance case alleging corruption in laying of roads while he was acting as Minister for Public Works. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307]

The LOC has been stayed on the condition that Velu appears before the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on July 15 for enquiry.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan also directed DVAC not to take any coercive action against Velu till July 28 and directed the department to file its counter in a plea filed by him for quashing the FIR and subsequent LOC.

DVAC had registered an FIR against the former Minister and others on June 25, 2026, based on a complaint filed by the NGO Arappor Iyakkam in 2022, alleging that money was paid to a contractor before work began. It was alleged that there was corruption in the allotment of funds for road infrastructure projects.

Step-Son Not Eligible To Claim Family Pension Under Railway Pension Rules: Madras High Court

Case Title: Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308

The Madras High Court has held that a stepson is not eligible to claim family pension under the Railway Rules. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 308]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, family pension could be granted only to persons who fell under the definition of “family” as provided under the Act. Noting that a stepson is not included in the definition of “family”, the court held that he could not claim a family pension.

Karur Stampede | Madras High Court Permits TVK Govt To Give Jobs To Victims' Kin, Says Appointments Will Be Subject To Review

Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 10), permitted the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) led state government to give government jobs to families of victims who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. The bench, however, said that the appointments would be temporary and subject to judicial review. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 309]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel of the Madurai bench observed that it would be extremely narrow of the court to interfere with a policy decision of the government. The bench thus permitted the state to proceed with a public function, scheduled to be held at 3 pm today, to give appointment letters to the families of the deceased.

Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of "Idhayam Murali" Movie On Filmmaker Sudha Kongara's Plea

Case Title: Sudha Kongara and another v Dawn Pictures

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310

The Madras High Court on Friday (July 10) refused to halt the release of upcoming Tamil movie "Idhayam Murali" on a plea filed by filmmaker Sudha Kongara over unpaid remuneration of Rs. 8.39 crores for her work in connection with the Tamil movie “Parasakthi”. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 310]

Justice K Kumaresh Babu also refused to reserve all records of revenue generated from the movie "Parasakthi" on the director's plea. The court has instead referred the matter for arbitration and appointed Justice R Subramanian (retd) as the Arbitrator.

Sudha has moved the court against Dawn Pictures seeking payment of Rs 8.39 crore along with an interest of 12% from February 8, 2026. The amount has been claimed as a measure for securing a claim amount till the passing of an arbitral award.

No Legal Bar On Deploying Female Teachers To Govt Aided Boys School: Madras High Court

Case Title: Saratha v The Chief Educational Officer and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311

The Madras High Court recently held that the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules do not prohibit appointing a female teacher in an all-boys school. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 311]

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that an aided school could not object to the deployment of a woman teacher merely on the ground that it was a boys' school and did not have the infrastructure to accommodate a woman teacher.

The court observed that in absence of any statutory bar, such objection was not legally valid and the same could not be relied on for refusing to implement the deployment order.

Madras High Court Restrains ECI From Conducting Bye-Election In Five Constituencies, Including Seat Vacated By CM Joseph Vijay

Case Title: Venkatachalapathy v Election Commission of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312

The Madras High Court has restrained the Election Commission of India (ECI) from notifying bye-elections in Trichy (East), Perundurai, Ambasamudram, Viralimalai & Karur assembly constituencies till July 31st [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 312]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim orders on a plea filed by Venkatachalapathy, seeking to declare the vacancies in these constituencies as not “clear vacancies” since election petitions concerning these constituencies were pending before the court.

No Right To Pollute Water Bodies In Name Of Religion: Madras High Court On Discarding Clothes In River During Death Rituals

Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313

The Madras High Court recently observed that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 313]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made the observation after noting the excess waste that was being dumped in the Tamirabarani river by devotees who came there to perform rituals for the departed. The court directed the authorities to ensure that the river does not get polluted through the rituals. However, noting that the issue involved the religious sentiments of Hindus, the court was not inclined to pass any orders without hearing the stakeholders.

The court also added that though believers had the right to do something which was spiritually beneficial to them, such right should not violate the rights of others in society. The court highlighted that the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health.

'No Hierarchy Among Devotees Based On Birth': Madras High Court Allows SC Community To Participate In Temple Rituals

Case Title: P. Sundararaju v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314

The Madras High Court recently permitted members of the Adi Dravidar community, a scheduled caste community, to perform the Ninth Day Mandakapadi (temple pooja) during the Chithirai festival in Arulmighu Sri Moongil Ayyanar Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 314]

Justice L Victoria Gowri held that the Constitution does not recognise any hierarchy among the devotees based on birth. The court added that though courts usually exercise restraint in matters concerning religious practices, such restraint could not be used to perpetuate practices which offend the constitutional guarantees such as equality, dignity and fraternity.

Madras High Court Quashes Appointment Of 54 Coimbatore Corporation Junior Assistants, Terms Selection Process “Fraud”

Case Title: Easwari and Others v The Chief Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315

The Madras High Court has recently set aside the appointment of 54 Junior Assistants in the Coimbatore Corporation after noting that the entire selection process was flawed and tainted. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 315]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar held that recruitment to public services should inspire public confidence.

The court noted that there was no selection committee constituted but only a verification committee headed by an Assistant Commissioner to verify the documents of the candidates, which was unknown to the service rules. Thus, the court noted that there was no valid selection committee as per the Service Rules or any procedure to assess the candidates were followed to assess the suitability and eligibility of the candidates.

The court emphasised that equal opportunity in public employment was a constitutional mandate. The court added that the tainted selection process was a ground to vitiate the entire selection process. The court also remarked that illegality in selection was not just a ground to vitiate the selection but also had larger repercussions in society.

Madras High Court Cautions Young Women Against Sharing Intimate Photos Online, Issues Appeal In English, Hindi And Tamil

Case Title: Suji @ Kasi v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316

While dismissing the appeal of a man against his conviction in a case of sexual assault by intimidation using intimate images, the Madras High Court appealed to young women not to share their intimate photos or videos online, no matter how deep the affection may appear. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 316]

Considering the public importance involved in the issue, the bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan issued the advisory in English, Hindi and Tamil languages and also expressed regret in not being able to translate the portion in all regional languages. The court added that once the intimate materials are shared online, there was a possibility that the same could be misused, leading to irreversible consequences.

ALSO READ: Repeated Physical Intimacy Doesn't Necessarily Establish Consent; Courts Must Examine Coercion And Deception: Madras High Court

ALSO READ: Madras High Court Flags Psychological Toll Of Viewing Graphic Sexual-Offence Evidence On Judges, Investigators & Lawyers

Independent Advocate Appointed As Special Public Prosecutor Entitled To Reimbursement Of Travel Expenses: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Secretary To Government and Others v B Mohan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317

The Madras High Court recently directed the State to clear the travel expenses of a lawyer who was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in a case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 317]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that when an independent advocate was appointed to a highly sensitive prosecution, he was performing a vital public duty. The court added that the State could not expect the advocate to pay for the fuel when he had to travel hundreds of kilometres for the case, as that would itself swallow his professional fee.

Madras High Court Closes Plea Seeking CBI Action Against BJP Leaders Over Alleged 'NaMo App' Micro-Donation Scam

Case Title: BR Aravindakshan v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318

The Madras High Court has closed a plea seeking a probe into alleged donations sought 'fraudulently' through the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) NaMo app and website. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 318]

The petitioner had also sought a direction to the CBI or the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, to register an FIR and initiate legal action against the party, former National President JP Nadda, the Chief Complaints Officer of the Namo App, Amit Malviya, and all others allegedly involved in the NaMo app special micro donation online scandal.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan closed the plea after Special Public Prosecutor for CBI informed the court of having closed the complaint made by the petitioner since it did not fall under the purview of CBI. Thus, the court was inclined to close the present petition also.

Trial Court Can't Refuse To Entertain Plea Seeking Recall Of Witnesses After Alteration Of Charges: Madras High Court

Case Title: B. Ramesh @ Kaviya Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319

The Madras High Court recently held that a trial court's refusal to entertain an application filed by the accused under Section 217 CrPC seeking to recall the witnesses after alteration of charge, would strike at the very root of procedural fairness. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 319]

Justice Victoria Gowri held that though the provision gives liberty to the court to refuse to recall a witness if the same is sought to delay the process, such discretion should be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The court held that it was required to first receive the petition, number it, and then adjudicate it on its merits.

No Right To Burial Or Cremation In Grounds Vested With Another Local Body Unless Protected By Article 25 Or Custom: Madras High Court

Case Title: Anbalagan P and Others v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320

The Madras High Court recently held that residents of one village cannot claim a right of burial in another village unless the same has the character of a customary right. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 320]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan thus refused relief for a group of villagers who had sought burial rights in a crematorium in another village. The court said that the villagers had not established a right under Article 25 of the Constitution and had only canvassed the plea based on convenience. The court noted that the balance of convenience could not be used to establish an enforceable right.

Employee Facing Departmental Action For Corruption Can't Claim Promotion As Right Merely Because Name Was Included In Panel: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

The Madras High Court recently held that an employee, facing departmental proceedings for charges of corruption, could not claim promotion as a matter of right merely because his name was included in the panel for promotion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321].

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules 2016 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stipulate that only an officer with clean records should be promoted to a higher post. The court thus held that if any tainted officer is promoted only on the ground that his name was included in the panel despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same would be against the object of the law.

Madras High Court Upholds FIR Against Commentator V Ponraj Over Remarks Against TVK Women Supporters

Case Title: Dr Ponraj v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), dismissed a plea filed by political commentator V Ponraj seeking to quash an FIR registered against him for making 'derogatory' comments against women supporters of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 322]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the plea. The court had reserved orders on July 13. The court observed that Ponraj, being a person of considerable standing in society, should have exercised restraint while making such public comments. The court added that a person of such scientific eminence bears a greater responsibility in public discourse and such standing should not be taken as a defence to quash the FIR.

Madras High Court Closes Plea Alleging Corruption In Appointment Of Govt Advocates, Says Politicians Impleaded 'Only To Make Headlines'

Case Title: M Gnanasoundari v The Secretary, Law Department and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323

The Madras High Court, on Friday (July 17), closed a plea filed by a lawyer and Joint Secretary of the District Advocates Wing (Villupuram District) of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party alleging corruption in the appointment of Government Advocates in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 323]

Justice Mohammed Shaffiq closed the plea after Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the appointments presently made were temporary, for a period of 6 months, and that the state was processing the applications received by candidates to be appointed as Law Officers in the subordinate courts.

Parent's Private Chats Showing Drug Use Relevant To Child's Custody Case, Can't Be Excluded On Grounds Of Privacy: Madras High Court

Case Title: M v B

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324

The Madras High Court recently held that materials, including WhatsApp chats and screenshots, which allegedly show a parent's drug use, procurement of narcotic substances, and association with persons involved in such activity would directly have a bearing on assessing the parent's fitness while dealing with a guardianship application, and the same could not be excluded merely on the ground of such parent's privacy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 324]

Justice AD Maria Clete observed that the welfare of the child was paramount and a matter of public concern, and thus such materials should not be excluded merely because they originated in a private communication.

Madras High Court Refuses CBI Probe Into Alleged Poaching Of Tamil Nadu MLAs, Says Newspaper Reports Can't Be Basis

Case Title: J Balasubramani v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking CBI probe into complaints of poaching of MLAs in the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 325]

The petition was filed by an advocate from Tiruppur, in light of the recent allegations made by a TVK MLA that he was offered Rs. 35 Crore at the behest of another political party, to vote against the Speaker in a proposed no-confidence motion.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that transferring the investigation to the CBI was an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances. The court held that the investigation could be transferred only when the local investigation was paralyzed or compromised. In the present case, the court noted that there was nothing to show that the local police were acting in bad faith.

Protest Is Hallmark Of Democracy: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Farmer For Hunger Strike

Case Title: Krishnamoorthy v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326

The Madras High Court recently quashed criminal cases lodged against an agriculturist for holding a hunger strike against the continuous lodging of criminal cases against their Farmers' Association leader. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 326]

Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed that there was no material to show that the persons had caused any inconvenience to the general public. The court also highlighted that raising slogans and showing protest will not be an offence, as showing protest itself is a hallmark of democracy, protected under the Constitution.

Madras High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Youth Booked For 'Recklessly Replying' To Police Query During Night Patrol

Case Title: Mugilan v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327

The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a youth who had recklessly replied to a police officer who was on rounds during night patrol. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the allegations against him were not made out and that continuing the trial would be a futile exercise. The court also took note of the unconditional apology tendered by him and observed that the prosecution need not be continued.

Police, Professionals Appearing Before Court As Witness Should Come In Prescribed Uniform, Maintain Discipline: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

The Madras High Court recently emphasised that police officers, medical practitioners, or any professional appearing before the court to depose as a witness should come in prescribed uniform and maintain integrity, discipline and devotion to duty. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar added that the judicial officer should strictly ensure that the professionals maintain discipline inside the court halls. The bench added that if the officers were found to engage in indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behaviour, the judicial officer should file a complaint before the competent authority for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all police personnel across the State, directing the police officers attending the courts to wear proper uniform and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failing which disciplinary action would be taken.

Repeatedly Calling Child Victims In POCSO Cases To Relive Trauma Violates Their Right To Life: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramesh v The State of Tamilnadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329

The Madras High Court recently observed that a child victim in POCSO cases cannot be called to the court repeatedly and made to relive the trauma. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 329]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that society does not often understand the mental trauma that a child experiences when subjected to sexual harassment. The court added that though the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act provides stringent punishment for sexual assault of children, the implementation of the Act itself should not become a source of trauma for the child.

The court observed that the purpose of the POCSO Act was to protect the children. However, the child still had to undergo the ordeal of reliving the trauma while disclosing the incident to the parents or close relative, while being interviewed by the Child Welfare Committee member, while interacting with the Physicians and experts on medical examination, while recording a statement, while being taken to the Magistrate to record a statement under Section 164, and while being examined before the court. The court noted that these instances themselves would cause trauma to the child.

Magistrate Can't Mechanically Accept Closure Report Stating Accused Is 'Undetected', Must Ensure All Aspects Are Probed: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kannan Bala v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330

The Madras High Court recently observed that a Magistrate is not expected to merely act as a post office and accept a closure report filed by the police stating that a case was undetected or there was a mistake of fact.

The court emphasised that the Magistrate was expected to ensure that the police investigated all the relevant aspects before filing the “undetected” closure report. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 330]

Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the Magistrate cannot dismiss a protest petition mechanically and, while considering the protest petition, was required to examine whether the closure report had dealt with material aspects.

Advocates Must Approach Civil Court For Recovery Of Fees From Clients, Can't Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sunit Kumar Agarwal v The Assistant General Manager and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331

The Madras High Court recently held that disputes relating to repayment of pending professional fees are not public in nature and assume the character of private civil disputes. The court thus held that an advocate cannot file writ petitions for recovering such pending professional fee from client. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 331]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that a writ was an extraordinary remedy which was designed to correct constitutional overreaches, failure of public duty, and arbitrary use of state power. The court added that it could interfere in contract matters only when there was glaring arbitrariness and an absolute admission of liability.

Madras High Court Rejects Senthil Balaji's Plea Alleging Police Harassment In Pending Criminal Investigations

Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The Commissioner of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 22) dismissed petitions filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party MLA Senthil Balaji and his brother alleging police harassment in connection with pending investigations against them. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 332]

While dismissing the plea, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan orally remarked that the relief sought for in the plea was premature and that the police could not be prevented from investigating if there was material.

Balaji had approached the court seeking direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of search, enquiry or investigation, and if his presence was required in any pending or proposed case, to issue proper written notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS as mandated in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar.

DMK's Periakaruppan Withdraws Plea In Madras High Court Challenging TVK MLA's Victory By One Vote

Case Title: KR Periakaruppan v The Chief Election Officer and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333

The Madras High Court has dismissed as withdrawn a plea filed by Periakaruppan, DMK's candidate in Tirupattur Constituency, against the victory of TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 333]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the Supreme Court had permitted Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea pending before the High Court after he filed an election petition challenging Sethupathi's victory. Taking note of this, the court allowed Periakaruppan to withdraw the plea and closed it.

Madras High Court Refuses To Regularise Temporary Stenos, Typists, Junior Assistants In District Judiciary

Case Title: R Bharathi v The Principal Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334

The Madras High Court recently refused to regularise the appointment of temporary stenotypists, typists, and junior assistants in the District Judiciary across the State of Tamil Nadu. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 334]

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar emphasised that the temporary appointment could not be allowed to continue for an indefinite period. The court remarked that the judicial department is expected to initiate steps to ensure that the sanctioned posts are made available and are filled up by conducting a recruitment process on a regular basis.

The court made it clear that all appointments made to public posts should be strictly as per the constitutional scheme. The court also remarked that irregular, illegal and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable service rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who aspire to secure public employment. The court also remarked that allowing such back-door appointment to continue constitutional sin.

Madras High Court Refuses To Quash ₹7,237-Crore Illegal Mining Cases, Says 'Unholy Nexus' Between Public Officials & Accused Delayed Trial

Case Title: PRP Exports and Others v Directorate of Enforcement

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335

The Madras High Court recently refused to quash an illegal mining case registered against a group of quarry operators, accused of causing a loss of Rs 7,237 crore to the State exchequer. The court added that the trial in the case was pending for almost 14 years due to delay facilitated through the "unholy nexus" between former public officials, politicians and the quarry operators. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 335]

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan also took note of the new government in the State and the usual practice of appointing Special Public Prosecutors for special cases after the formation of the new government. The court thus directed the Chief Secretary to the Government to constitute a special public prosecution team to effectively conduct the prosecution and ensure that every endeavour is made to conclude the trial within 3 months.

'Students Can't Attend Classes In State Of Fear': Madras High Court Upholds Expulsion Of Law Students Accused Of Kidnapping Classmate

Case Title: U Dinesh Kumar and Another v VELS Institute of Science

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336

The Madras High Court recently upheld the detention order passed by Vels Institute of Science Technology and Advanced Studies (VISTAS), expelling two students accused of kidnapping another student of the College and demanding a ransom of Rs. 2 Lakh. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 336]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that the institute's code of conduct prohibited students from engaging in any form of misconduct, including off-campus activities that could affect the university's interests and reputation, and also permitted the university to expel students permanently.

The court also noted that after the crime of kidnapping was registered against the students, it was the duty of the college to take action and ensure a free and conducive environment for students to undergo the course. The court added that the other students could not attend college in a state of limbo and fear.

S.48 BNSS Doesn't Mandate Written Intimation Of Arrest To Relatives, Intimation Through Phone Call/ SMS Valid: Madras High Court

Case Title: Dhetchinamoorthy @ Dakshinamoorthy v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337

The Madras High Court recently held that section 48 of the BNSS does not mandate that the intimation of arrest be given in writing to the relatives of the arrested persons. The court held that an intimation through phone call or SMS is a valid intimation. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 337]

Justice R Vijayakumar thus refused to interfere with the remand of four persons arrested in an NDPS case on the ground that the intimation was not given to the relatives in writing.

The court noted that the relatives, friends and other persons nominated by the arrested persons had been informed about the arrest through SMS or phone call, based on the information provided, and there was no allegation from the relative that they were not informed.

Madras High Court Directs Two Police Officers To Pay ₹1 Lakh Each For Failing To Register Dowry FIR

Case: P. v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed two police personnel— an Inspector and a Sub Inspector, of an All Women Police Station to pay Rs. 1,00,000 each as compensation to the father of woman, for closing a dowry complaint without registering an FIR despite disclosure of cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 338]

“The lapse committed by respondents 2 and 3 [police officials] cannot be ignored, since their failure to register a case despite allegations disclosing cognizable offences resulted in avoidable hardship and prejudice to the petitioner,” Justice L Victoria Gowri said in her order.

Both officials had already been placed under suspension.

Taking note of the remorse expressed by the respondents and the suspension already undergone by them, the court however directed that no further departmental proceedings be initiated against the respondents, observing that the court was “satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met by the disciplinary action already undergone by them coupled with the payment of compensation directed herein.”

Madras High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Illegally Watching CM Vijay's 'Jana Nayagan' Movie Online Before Release

Case Title: R. Pradeep Kumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339

The Madras High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of watching the illegally released copy of Chief Minister Vijay's “Jana Nayagan” movie online, before its release on Friday. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 339]

Justice C Kumarappan noted that the only allegation against the man was that he had watched the movie illegally and no overt act had been attributed against him. The court also noted that the final report had already been filed in the case and other co-accused had already been granted bail, though the same had been challenged. The court was thus inclined to grant anticipatory bail.

Only Voter Or Candidate From Same Constituency Can File Election Petition: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Senthil Balaji

Case Title: K Prakasam v The Chief Election Commissioner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340

The Madras High Court recently observed that an election petition challenging the victory of a candidate can be filed only by an elector who belonged to the same constituency. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340]

Justice Anand Venkatesh thus dismissed an election petition filed by a voter against the victory of DMK's Sethil Balaji from Coimbatore South constituency. The court noted that the petition was more in the nature of a public interest litigation as the petitioner was not a voter in the constituency from which Balaji contested in the elections. Noting that an election petition cannot substitute for PIL, the court dismissed the plea.

The court noted that if the word “elector” was given a broader meaning, any elector of any constituency could question the election of a candidate from another constituency. The court also added that such a broader meaning would open a Pandora's box as election petitions would galore after every assembly election.

'His Evidence Is Vital': Madras High Court Orders Police Protection For Retired IAS Officer Facing Threats After Probing Illegal Mining Cases

Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341

The Madras High Court, on Monday (July 27), ordered the Director General of Police to provide protection to retired IAS officer U Sagayam, facing life threats since he probed alleged mining irregularities across the State of Tamil Nadu

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that Sagayam's evidence was crucial for the trial of illegal mining cases and that he was facing life threats while going to courts for deposing as a witness. The court thus directed the DGP to provide police protection to Sagayam, whenever he is going to Court, with at least one gunman.

Meanwhile, State has been asked to review his application for restoring police protection expeditiously.

Use Of Expression 'Hindu Terrorism' In Speech Calling For Unity Not Offence Of Provocation In Absence Of Any Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342

The Madras High Court recently held that merely uttering the word “Hindu Terrorism” will not attract the offence of provocation when the same was not followed by any act on the part of the person commenting. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy thus quashed a criminal case registered against a man for allegedly making provocative speech during a public meeting.

The court noted that the speech was made in 2017 and no useful purpose would be served by conducting the trial and continuing the investigation. The court noted that the man had only used the inappropriate word of “Hindu Terrorism” and there was no intention to divide people on communal lines.

Madras High Court Quashes Compassionate Appointment Given To Families Of Karur Stampede Tragedy

Case Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief Secretary

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343

The Madras High Court, Madurai bench on Monday (July 27) struck down a Government Order passed by the Tamil Nadu government giving compassionate appointment to the families of those who lost their lives in the Karur stampede tragedy in September last year. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343]

A division bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, noted that the appointment was violative of Article 14 ad 16. The bench said that there were many who were waiting to get compassionate appointment in every government department and it was not appropriate to overlook their needs and provide employment to the families in the present case.

The court also noted that though the State had claimed to have passed the orders in exercise of its administrative powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, such powers had to be exercised within the rigours of the Constitution.

Madras High Court Cancels Look-Out Circular Against Former Minister EV Velu In DVAC Corruption Case, Imposes Condition On Foreign Travel

Case Title: EV Velu v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 28), cancelled the look-out circular issued against former Minister EV Velu in connection with a case registered against him by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the laying of roads while he was acting as Minister for Public Works. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan cancelled the circular after noting that Velu had come back to India and was cooperating with the investigation. The court was thus inclined to cancel the circular on the condition that Velu gives prior intimation to the jurisdictional magistrate if he intends to travel abroad. It may be noted that the court had previously stayed the operation of the circular.

Madras High Court Moots Policy Review On Enrolment, Bar Association Posts For Advocates Facing Criminal Cases, Orders Survey

Case Title: B Jagadeeshwaran v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345

Noting the alarming increase in the number of advocates facing criminal cases, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to conduct a detailed survey and frame appropriate rules and policies regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 345]

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy issued the direction after noting the large number of cases flooding the courts, involving practicing advocates. The court added that the issue has reached a stage where an appropriate policy decision was required.

The court said that a survey by the Bar Council into number of advocates facing charges would in turn assist in taking an informed policy decision and framing appropriate rules regarding enrolment into the profession and eligibility for holding offices in Bar Associations.

Advocates Must Pay Toll Like Everyone Else, Can't Claim Special Treatment: Madras High Court Quashes Case Over Protest

Case title: Rajkumar & Sreethar @ Sridharan v The State & another,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346

The Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against lawyers who staged a protest demanding that the Trichy-Chennai highway be made toll-free for advocates, holding that the demonstration was an exercise of their democratic right to protest and did not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 346]

The Court, however, stated that a road cannot be made toll-free for advocates specially.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed:

“The entire episode is nothing but an expression of their right to democratic protest, though for a bizarre reason. Merely because the petitioners are members of the Bar, they cannot be placed on a separate pedestal. When a toll is legally collected from the public, it must be paid by the members of the Bar as well".

Electricity Dues Can't Be Recovered Solely From Bar Association When Govt Offices Share Same Connection: Madras High Court

Case Title: Pudukottai Bar Association v The Secretary to Government & TANGEDCO,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that Pudukottai Bar Association cannot be made solely liable to pay entire electricity dues arising from a common service connection which was also being used by several other government law offices. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 347]

In doing so the court granted relief to Pudukottai Bar Association challenging a demand notice seeking recovery of Rs 5,38,924 towards electricity consumption charges for the period between November 2013 and May 2018. During the pendency of the petition, the outstanding amount had increased to Rs 22,40,665.

The Court directed the Electricity Board to install separate meters for each occupant.

'No Material': Madras High Court Refuses To Direct Inquiry Into Non-Disclosure Of Assets By DMK Chief MK Stalin In 2026 Election Affidavit

Case Title: T Sivagnanasambandan v The Chief Election Commissioner

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (July 29), permitted the withdrawal of the plea seeking an inquiry into alleged non-disclosure of assets by former Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party President MK Stalin, in his election affidavit filed during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly Elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 348]

The petitioner requested the court to allow withdrawal of the plea after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination in issuing directions to the Election Commission of India to conduct an enquiry based on the representation made by the petitioner. The bench had orally remarked that the petitioner had not produced any materials to prima facie show that the assets were not declared as per law.

Cryptic Phone Calls, Wireless Messages To Police About Crime Don't By Themselves Constitute FIR: Madras High Court

Case Title: Ramasubramanian @ Ramasubbu v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349

The Madras High Court recently held that any information received by the police with respect to a crime would not automatically amount to a first information statement or a first information report unless such information meets the statutory requirements of Section 154 of CrPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 349]

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that in the present era of instant and electronic communication, any information regarding a crime could reach the police through various channels including cryptic telephone calls, wireless messages, information from eyewitnesses, etc. The court noted that such information is mostly intended to prevent further untoward incidents.

The court observed that the burden was on the accused to prove that the prior information received by the police in connection with the crime was material information in accordance with Section 154 of CrPC and that this information was suppressed by the prosecution.

Madras High Court Issues Directions To State, Judiciary For Speedy Trial Of Rape & POCSO Cases

Case Title: XXX v The Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350

The Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government and the State judiciary for speeding up the investigation and trial of cases of crimes against women and children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 350]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan stressed the need to follow the time limit prescribed for completing trial and witness examination under Section 346 of BNSS and Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

The court has directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all District and Sessions Judges in the State reiterating the obligation to comply with Section 346(1) of the BNSS and the mandate of recording reasons while granting adjournment as contemplated under Section 346(2) of the BNSS.

The court also directed the Registrar General to reissue an earlier circular, reminding the Presiding Officers of the Special POCSO court about their obligation to record evidence of victim child within 30 days and to conclude the trial within a year as far as possible.

Husband Seeking Divorce Over Wife's Accidental Hip Injury 'Inhumane', Against Constitutional Values: Madras High Court

Case Title: U v M

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351

The Madras High Court has recently held that a husband seeking divorce on the ground that the wife had a hip injury and was incapable of leading a matrimonial life would be inconsistent with humane values of the matrimonial relationship. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 351]

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that a physical disability or an accidental injury does not render a person incapable of leading a happy and fulfilling matrimonial life. The court added that humanity demands a spouse to extend compassion, support, and adjustment to a partner who has suffered a physical disability, without treating such disability with contempt.

The bench also remarked that if accidental injuries sustained by a partner are taken as a ground for dissolution of marriage, the institution of marriage and the principles of matrimonial jurisprudence would be undermined.

'Custodial Interrogation Necessary': Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Former DMK Minister Senthil Balaji In DVAC Corruption Case

Case Title: Senthil Balaji v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352

The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 30) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former DMK Minister and present MLA of the Coimbatore South constituency, Senthil Balaji in connection with a case registered against him by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, alleging corruption in the functioning of TASMAC. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 352]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the anticipatory bail plea after considering the large-scale corruption involved in the case. The court opined that custodial interrogation was very much necessary in the case and thus dismissed the plea.

The court also took note of the allegation that the accused had abused their official positions and entered into conspiracy, causing large-scale loss to the state exchequer.

Madras High Court Recognizes Tamirabarani River As Juristic Person, Says It Can't Be Polluted In Name Of Religion

Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

The Madras High Court has granted personhood to the Tamirabarani river, making it clear that no person will have a right to pollute the river, even in the name of religion. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made it clear that personhood was being granted not because the waterbody was a river, but because the river was treated as a deity by persons of the Hindu religion. The court thus observed that any pollution in the river would not just be against the environmental laws but also against the river's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, the court has permitted immersion of ashes in the river, considering the sentimental and emotional attachment that Indians have to the waters of rivers and oceans and the importance of performing the rituals. The permission was granted on the condition that the ashes are carried in an unfired earthen pot, which could dissolve in the river immediately. The court made it clear that ashes cannot be thrown along with pots.

Madras High Court Directs State To Ensure Scheduled Caste Devotees Can Participate In Temple Chariot Festival, Orders Police Protection

Case: Pamban v The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & others,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354

The Madras High Court has directed authorities to ensure that members of the Scheduled Caste community in Salem's Deviyakurichi village are allowed to participate in the annual 'Ther' festival of the Arulmigu Ayyanar Temple with adequate police protection. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 354]

For context, Ther Festival is a Hindu temple chariot festival where large, decorated wooden cars carrying deity idols are pulled through streets by devotees.

Senior Citizens Act | Asking Daughter To Shift To Second Floor So Elderly Parents Can Occupy Ground Floor Not Eviction: Madras High Court

Case Title: Sakunthala & Kumaresan v Appellate Authority Under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act & others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld an order directing a daughter and her husband to shift from the ground floor of their house to the second floor, enabling the elderly parents to occupy the ground floor on account of their advanced age. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 355]

Justice M. Dhandapani held that the order by the appellate authority did not evict the petitioners, but merely regulated the mode of occupation in the house to safeguard the welfare and convenience of the senior citizens.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the appellate authority's order violated an interim injunction granted by a civil court restraining the parents from evicting the petitioners from the property.

'Would Harm Communal Harmony': Madras High Court Rejects Plea To Stop Amusement Rides During Aadi Thabasu Festival

Case Title: J.Hakkim v The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District & others,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a plea seeking to stop amusement rides and activities during the Aadi Thabasu festival in Tenkasi, holding that petitions of this nature, when organisers have already obtained all necessary permissions, could harm communal harmony. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 356]

Justice L. Victoria Gowri observed,

“Aadi Thabasu is a very important traditional festival which is being conducted from time to time by the people of Tamil Nadu with great bhakti and devotion. Writ petition like this, would harm the communal harmony and religious harmony of the locality and this Court negates all the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the proper instructions and various permissions which has been already afforded to the organizers by the Government".

SC/ST Community Status Of Govt Employee Can Be Verified Post Retirement, Inquiry Must Conclude Within 2 Months: Madras High Court Full Bench

Case Title: R. Gurusamy v Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357

The Madras High Court has ruled that the genuineness of a community certificate/caste certificate of a government employee can be verified even after retirement from service. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 357]

Answering a reference, the full bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice K Kumaresh Babu and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that an appointment based on a fraudulent certificate would be invalid from the beginning and retirement would not wash away the same. The court also held that it could not protect the retirement benefits of an employee whose employment was invalid from the beginning.

Noting that fraud has no expiry date, the bench held that employees and Scrutiny Committees are empowered to verify the genuineness of caste certificate even when the certificate was issued prior to 1995.

Salary Details Of Judges Not Exempted From RTI Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: The High Court of Judicature at Madras v The TN Information Commission and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358

The Madras High Court recently held that details regarding the pay scale/salary details of judges are not information that is exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 358]

Justice M Dhandapani noted that the judges receive their salary from the Consolidated Fund of India and since the salary is paid from public funds, a citizen cannot be prevented from knowing about the details of the same.

Political Identity Should Not Influence Police Response To Criminal Complaints: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Thirumurugan @ Theeran Thirumurugan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359

The Madras High Court recently observed that the police cannot take a different approach while dealing with cases, depending on the political ideology of the persons involved in the case. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 359]

Justice L Victoria Gowri thus directed the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station to expeditiously process a complaint against persons for allegedly making objectionable social media posts about Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) party chief Seeman.

The court noted that the freedom of speech and expression has a cherished position in a constitutional democracy; this freedom was not absolute. The court said that the law did not permit publication of material which amounted to a cognisable offence, merely because it related to a political personality. The court also stressed that the court could not adopt a different approach while dealing with complaints involving different political persons.

Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Direct Bank Transfer Of Compensation In Motor Accident Cases

Case Title: The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v D Salsa and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360

The Madras High Court has issued directions for disbursing compensation in motor accident cases by way of direct bank transfer. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 360]

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to issue a circular, after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the Chief Justice, to all Motor Accident Tribunals in the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for strict compliance of the directions to ensure timely disbursement of just compensation to the claimants, in the interest of justice.

The court has directed all insurance companies, transport corporations and others liable for compensation to deposit the awarded/enhanced compensation by Direct Bank Transfer (NEFT/RTGS) into the bank account of the claimant, confirmed and specified by the Tribunal in its award.

Whistling At Child, Pulling Her Hand May Be Harassment, Not Sexual Assault: Madras High Court

Case Title: Mandai @ Manogaran v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361

The Madras High Court recently held that whistling at a minor girl and pulling her hand when she did not to respond is not sexual assault. The court said that such acts could only be termed as harassment and not assault. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361]

“From the statements of witnesses and materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner pulled the victim by his hand, when the victim failed to respond to his whistle. Such act cannot be straightaway termed as sexual intent and at most, it can be termed as harassment and not an act of sexual assault. Hence, the judgment needs to be re-considered,” Justice Nirmal Kumar said.

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

Case Title: G.V.Markandayan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 362

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 363

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Sethuraj v The Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 364

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365

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

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

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

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

Case Title: GV Markandayan v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

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

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

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

Case Title: Ganga Neduncheliyan v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 367

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

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

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

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

Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 368

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 369

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 370

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 371

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

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

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

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

Case Title: G Devarajan v The Principal Secretary and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 373

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Sherip and Another v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 375

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 376

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 377

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 378

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

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

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

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

Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

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

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

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

Case Title: SR Sekar v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 380

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

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

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

Case Title: Nakkeeran Gopal v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 381

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 382

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Mad) 383

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 384

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 385

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 386

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

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

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

Case Title: J Ramesh Kumar v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 387

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

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

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

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

Case Title: Ramesh v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 389

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

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

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

Case Title: M v Government of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Paulpandiyan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 391

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

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

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

Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Against TVK MLA N Elaiyaraja

Case Title: C Geetha v Dr N Elaiyaraja and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 392

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 393

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

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

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

Case Title: SM Anthony Muthu v Tharahai Cuthbert and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 394

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

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

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

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

Case Title: PV Selvakumar v The Speaker and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 395

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 396

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 397

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 398

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 399

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

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

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

Case Title: R v J

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 400

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: M Chinnasamy v The Chairperson CBFC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 401

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 404

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

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

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

Case Title: TR Ramesh v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 405

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 406

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 407

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

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

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

Case Title: Maheshkumar v State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 408

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 409

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 410

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: The District Collector and Others v G Manickam

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 411

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 412

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

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

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Vinoth Suriya Kumar v The State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 414

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 415

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

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

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

Case Title: K Backiyaraj v The Inspector Of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 416

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

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

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

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.

Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the materials relied upon by the prosecution did not disclose the offences alleged. The court added that the materials were insufficient to establish the presence of the two accused at the place of occurrence or that they had conspired to commit the offence. The court further added that the charges under the SC/ST Act would also fall as there was no reference to caste name in public view.

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.