Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 19 - January 25, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 NOMINAL INDEX Prabhakaran v. The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 Amit Malviya v State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38 Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 REPORT Madras High Court Moots Treating Live-In Relationships As Marriage, Calls It A 'Cultural Shock' To India Case Title: Prabhakaran v. The State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 37 The Madras High Court recently stressed on the need to protect the rights of women who are caught up in the "modern web" of live-in relationships. Justice S Srimathy remarked that live-in relationships are a cultural shock to the Indian society but are happening widely everywhere. The bench added that the girls enter live-in relationship assuming themselves to be modern but later realise that the relationship does not guarantee any protection. The court remarked that there is a need to protect the women who are caught in the modern culture. It remarked that live-in relationships could be recognised as similar to the Gandharva marriages (love marriage) that are part of the eight types of marriages in ancient India. The court thus noted that the women in live-in relationships could be protected by granting them the status of wife under Gandharva marriage. 'Clear Attack On Hinduism By Dravida Kazhagam': Madras High Court Quashes FIR Against Amit Malviya For Post Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Case Title: Amit Malviya v State and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 38 The Madras High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BJP's Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising Tamil Nadu Deputy CM and Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on Santana Dharma Justice S Srimathy observed that Malviya had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister and continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury. The Court also recorded that while no case had been registered against the Minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a hate speech case was registered against the person reacting to it. Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Despite Not Being Admitted Under PwD Quota: Madras High Court Case Title: Gokula Krishnan B v. The Registrar and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 39 The Madras High Court recently came to the aid of a law student with chronic schizophrenia by directing the Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University to provide fee waiver, as long as the student was within the 40% benchmark disability. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the Tamil Nadu Government and the university had introduced the welfare scheme, providing a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, but it was being extended only to the persons admitted in the 5% quota earmarked for persons with disabilities. The court noted that when the State intended to provide a fee waiver for persons with disabilities, such implementation could not be approached pedantically by clubbing it with a reservation. 'Violation Of Privacy': Madras High Court Slams State For Collecting 'Sensitive' Information Of School Students Case Title: Ameer Alam v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 40 The Madras High Court recently criticised the State for collecting sensitive data of students who had stigmatic background. Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan set aside an order passed by the Member Secretary of the Model School, calling for certain information of students. The court noted that the information was sensitive and there was no explanation on how this data was going to be used or stored. Calling it a violation of the privacy of students, the court noted that it would be a clear discrimination and ill-treatment of students studying in the Model schools. Madras High Court Refuses To Cancel Interim Bail Of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, But Imposes Extra Conditions Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kamala Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 41 The Madras High Court, on Friday, refused to cancel the interim bail granted to YouTuber Journalist Savukku Shankar in an extortion case. The court, however, imposed additional conditions on his bail. The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman has asked Shankar not to make any statement, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the case, including comments against the conduct of the officers. The court has also asked Shankar not to interact with or intimidate the co-accused or the witnesses in the case. The court has also restricted Shankar's movement, adding that any movement should be for the purpose ...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 19 - January 25, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags