Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 30 - April 05, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 NOMINAL INDEX M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 R v P, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138 M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139 Eswaran v The State and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140 Rajkumar v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 141 L Murugan v. The State and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 142 Nallathambi v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 143 REPORT Mere Use Of Words “Waqf” And “Mosque” Doesn't Establish Public Waqf Sans Declaration: Madras High Court Case Title: M Sirajudeen Sayeed and Others v The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 135 The Madras High Court recently observed that unless there was a dedication or declaration of property for public charitable purpose, mere usage of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a settlement deed would not mean that a property has been declared as public waqf. Justice PB Balaji observed, “At the risk of repetition, mere use of the words ' Waqf ' and 'Mosque' will not imply that there has been creation of a public waqf under the deed,”. Liquor Consumption Is Personal Choice, But Shops Causing Nuisance Must Be Checked: Madras High Court Case Title: T Sathiskumar v The State Government of Tamilnadu Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 136 Setting aside a recreational club's alcohol license, the Madras High Court observed that while consuming alcohol is the personal choice of a person, no nuisance should be caused to the persons living in a locality by granting license to operate liquor shop. The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman noted that while granting license, the authority should conduct inquiry and find that three primary conditions are satisfied, i.e, (i) the local needs justify the grant of license, (ii) the public interest does not suffer by grant of license, and (iii) the privilege (of license) is not misused. Noting that the authority had not considered these aspects, the court set aside the license. Routine Marital Bickering Is Not 'Cruelty', Stable Relationships Require Patience And Adjustment: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Case Title: R v P Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 137 The Madras High Court recently confirmed an order of the Family Court dismissing a divorce petition filed by a husband on the grounds of cruelty by the wife. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal held that bickering between husband and wife was common, especially in the initial days of marriage. The court added that if such bickering was projected as cruelty, most marriages would have to be dissolved. The court highlighted that a stable relationship required patience and adjustments. “Publicity Litigation”: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Against Distribution Of Cash & Gifts During Election, Says ECI Already Taking Steps Case Title: KK Ramesh v Union of India and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 138 The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (1st April), dismissed a plea seeking to prevent illegal distribution of cash either directly or through tokens, and other inducements to voters at the time of elections. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan took note of the submissions made by the Election Commission of India and the State Government that necessary steps were being taken to curb the issue. Remarking that the petition was just a publicity interest litigation, the court dismissed the same. FB Post To Break Periyar Statue Only Expression Of Opinion, Cannot Be Considered As Promoting Enmity: Madras High Court Case Title: M Barani Dharan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 139 The Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a law student for making a Facebook post to break and remove a statue of EVR Periyar installed in front of the Srirangam temple. Justice R Vijayakumar noted that the student had only expressed his opinion that such a statue would hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. The court noted that such an expression of opinion had not caused any untoward incident. Thus, the court was inclined to quash the criminal case. Governor Bound By Council Of Ministers' Advice On Remission & Premature Release Of Convicts: Madras High Court Full Bench Case Title: Eswaran v The State and others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 140 A full bench of the Madras High Court has held that the Governor is bound by the decision of the Council of Ministers in matters relating to the remission and premature release of a convict prisoner. Answering a reference made to it, the bench of...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 30 - April 05, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags