NOMINAL INDEX

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

REPORT

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]

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]

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Advocates Act Recognises Convicts May Reform And Re-Enter Society: Centre In Plea Over Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Convict's Enrolment

Case Title: R Sudha v Union of India and Others

Case No: WP 19498 of 2026

Backing the validity of Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the Central Government has informed the Madras High Court that through the provision, Parliament intended to protect the dignity of the legal profession while still recognising that a person may reform and re-enter society after serving the statutory consequence of conviction.

Section 24A deals with disqualification for enrolment as a lawyer. As per the provision, no person shall be admitted as an advocate if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. A proviso is provided as per which the disqualification ceases to have effect after a period of 2 years since the release.

The Legislative and Legal Affairs Department, Union of India made the submissions before a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, by way of a counter affidavit. The bench has been dealing with a plea filed by Congress MP R Sudha, challenging the enrollment of AG Perarivalan, a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case, as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Plea Alleges Prisoners From Oppressed Community Made To Do Manual Scavenging And Toilet Cleaning Works, Madras High Court Seeks Report

Case Title: KR Raja v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP (MD) 25102 of 2026

The Madras High Court has sought a response from the State Government and the prison authorities on allegations that persons belonging to the oppressed communities are disproportionately made to clean toilets and do manual scavenging work in the prisons in the State.

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel directed the legal services authorities to inspect the prisons, examine CCTV footage and conduct an inquiry with prisoners and file reports. The court also asked the Principal District Judges of Madurai, Tirunelveli and Trichy, and the Superintendent of Prisons to inspect prisons and submit a report.

Madras High Court Reserves Verdict On AIADMK Plea Challenging Acceptance Of 4 MLAs' Resignations Who Joined TVK

Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Speaker and Others

Case No: WP 23081 of 2026

The Madras High Court has reserved orders on a plea filed by the whip of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) party, challenging the acceptance of the resignation of 4 MLAs who contested the assembly elections as AIADMK members but quit after the polls and joined CM Joseph Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party on the same day.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved orders after hearing the arguments on behalf of the party whip, the Speaker, the Secretary of the Legislative Assembly, and the MLAs who resigned from the party.

Nepal Floods: Madras High Court Seeks Report On Steps To Trace Missing Pilgrims From Tamil Nadu

Case Title: AF Parvesh Mushraf v The Union of India and Others

Case No: WP (MD) 25026 of 2026

The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to file a status report on the steps taken to trace out and rescue all the Tamils who have reportedly been missing in the flash floods that occurred in Nepal.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan issued the directions on a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer, Parvesh Mushraf, seeking directions to the Union Government and the State Government to coordinate with the competent search and rescue authorities in Nepal and the concerned private travel operators to take all necessary and expeditious measures and trace, locate and rescue all remaining Tamils in Nepal.