Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 NOMINAL INDEX P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 M v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 S v K, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215 Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216 P Saravanan and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 217 Bharath v The Additional Chief Secretary, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 218 RS Tamilvendan v The Secretary and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 219 Rita Chaurasiya and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 220 R Azhagappan v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 221 Rajesh v State and other connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 222 Dr.Ponraj v State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 223 REPORT Political Opinion Can't Be Removed Merely Because It's Inconvenient: Madras HC Stays TN Police's Notice Blocking “X" Posts Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 212 The Madras High Court recently stayed a notice of the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Tamil Nadu directing removing/blocking of multiple URLs on X/Twitter. Noting that the notice did not specify the reasons for blocking, Justice Victoria Gowri and Justice N Senthilkumar held that when state restricts speech, the same should be through reasons and not by cryptic command. The bench remarked that political opinions cannot be removed merely because they are sharp, inconvenient, satirical, dissenting or unpalatable. The court added that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution didn't just protest polite and agreeable speech but also protected criticism, dissent, satire, political disagreements and public debate. The court added that a democracy cannot take criticism as disorder, satire as sedition, dissent as danger or opinion as offence. Ensure Permanent Ramps At Routinely Notified Polling Booths, Make Websites Disabled-Friendly: Madras High Court To Election Commission Case Title: Vaishnavi Jayakumar v The Election Commission of India and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 213 The Madras High Court recently directed the Election Commission of India to ensure that the schools and public buildings, which are usually notified as polling booths for elections, should be made wheelchair accessible by constructing permanent ramps. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the ECI to take steps to make sure that its website was made easily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. 'Direct Evidence Of Adultery Extremely Difficult': Madras High Court Grants Divorce Citing Wife's Close Proximity With Another Man Case Title: M v. R Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214 The Madras High Court recently granted divorce to a man on the grounds of adultery by his wife, stating that though there was no direct evidence of sexual intercourse, there was evidence regarding close proximity of the wife with another married man. The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy, and it is very difficult to produce direct evidence of sexual intercourse to prove adultery. Madras High Court Grants Divorce To Husband After Wife Arranged Daughter's Marriage Without Informing Him Case Title: S v K Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 215 While granting divorce to a man, the Madras High Court recently observed that the wife's act of marrying off their daughter without informing him would cause him mental agony and constitute mental cruelty. The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar held that as a parent, the husband would have undergone extreme mental agony, pain, and suffering, which could never be compensated. The court also noted that the husband's later conduct, of preventing the wife from entering the house, was also due to the mental scar that he had suffered. Madras High Court Grants Bail To Savukku Shankar In Alleged Extortion Case, Orders Daily Appearance Before Police Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v Inspector of Police Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 216 The Madras High Court has granted bail to YouTuber Journalist Shankar alias Savukku Shankar in an alleged extortion case. Justice R Sakthivel granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed. The case is registered under Sections 296(b), 351(2), 308(3), 131, 115(2), 109, 353 (1)(b), and 61 (2)(b) of the BNS over allegations of Shankar demanding a sum of Rs 10,00,000 for removing an allegedly defamatory post. Taking note of the fact that the chargesheet had been filed and taken on file, the court was inclined to grant bail and...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers