LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 20 - July 26, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 340 NOMINAL INDEX 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 REPORT 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 ...

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 20 - July 26, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 20 - July 26, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers