LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 27 to August 2, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 361 NOMINAL INDEX 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 REPORT'His Evidence Is Vital': Madras High Court Orders Police Protection For Retired IAS Officer Facing Threats After Probing Illegal Mining CasesCase Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and OthersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 341The 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 NaduJustice 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 CourtCase Title: S Kumaradevan v The Inspector of PoliceCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 342The 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 TragedyCase Title: Theeran Thirumurugan @ Thirumurugan v The Chief SecretaryCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 343The 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 TravelCase Title: EV Velu v Union of IndiaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 344The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 28), cancelled the look-out circular issued against former Minister EV Velu in connection with a case registered...

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 27 to August 2, 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 27 to August 2, 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