LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: June 22 - June 28, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282 NOMINAL INDEX Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 PK Sekar Babu v The State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 278 Sameer Ahamed v The District Collector and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 279 M/s. Dugars v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 280 Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 281 The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation & Ors. Vs. K. Nalayini & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 282 REPORT Police Acted In Biased Manner: Madras High Court Orders CBCID Probe Into Attack On Senior Advocate By Quarry Operators' Representatives Case Title: Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 The Madras High Court has ordered a CBCID probe into the attack on V Suresh, Senior Advocate and General Secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties by persons allegedly associated with quarry operators during a public hearing. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274] Criticising the investigation done by the State police into the matter, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the State had acted in a biased manner and had conducted the investigation without properly examining the organisers, participants or the injured persons and had hurriedly filed the final report. Noting that the right to a fair investigation was part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that it was a fit case to transfer the investigation. Section 348 BNSS | Power To Recall Witness Should Not Be Used To Confer Second Innings To Negligent Litigant: Madras High Court Case Title: Anbu v The State of Tamilnadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 The Madras High Court recently held that the power of a trial court to recall a witness under Section 348 of the BNSS [corresponding to Section 311 of the CrPC] cannot be used to give a second chance to a negligent litigant to improve their case at the end of the trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 275] Justice Victoria Gowri observed that the criminal trial was not a game of strategy between the prosecution and defence but a search for truth. The court added that the search for truth should be bound by fairness, legality, and procedural discipline. Thus, the court held that the prosecution could not be allowed to bring in something that it failed to establish during the normal course of evidence, unless such evidence is indispensable. The court emphasized that the power to recall a witness should be exercised not merely because the evidence may be useful but because the absence of the evidence would render an unjust decision. Convicts' Leave, Temporary Release Can't Be Indefinitely Suspended Due To Pending Appeal: Madras High Court 5-Judge Bench Case Title: Sheefa Rani v The Secretary to Government Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 A 5-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that leave and temporary release are facets of human dignity which cannot be suspended indefinitely merely due to pendency of appeal. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 276] The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, Justice CV Karthikeyan, Justice AD Jagadish Chandira, Justice M Nirmal Kumar and Justice Sunder Mohan made the observations while dealing with a reference made to it for deciding the following question of law: 1) Whether leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982, can be granted to a prisoner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when his appeal against conviction is pending either before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court? 2) Whether the power to exempt under Rule 40 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 can be exercised by the State to grant leave to a prisoner outside the scope of the said Rules when his appeal against conviction is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1961 SC 112? CBFC Conscious Of Need To Protect Citizens' Cultural, Religious Beliefs: Madras High Court Upholds Refusal To Certify Tamil Film Case Title: Youreka Cinema School v The Chairman, CBFC Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277 The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification refusing to grant a certificate to the movie 'Lakshmi Lawrence Kadhal'. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 277] Justice R Kalaimathi noted that the CBFC and the examining committee had, in unison, concluded that the movie was violative of guideline 2(xii) in several places and was not suitable for public exhibition. The court...

LiveLaw Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: June 22 - June 28, 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: June 22 - June 28, 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