NOMINAL INDEX

Madras High Court Rejects Election Petition Challenging One-Vote Victory Of TVK's Seenivasa Sethupathi

Case Title: R Seenivasa Sethupathi v KR Periyakaruppan and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 465

The Madras High Court, on Monday (September 28), rejected an election petition filed by DMK's Periakaruppan challenging the victory of TVK candidate Seenivasa Sethupathi by one vote in Tirupattur Constituency. 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 465

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Sethupathi seeking to reject Periakaruppan's election petition.

Periakaruppan had alleged that postal votes that should have been sent to No. 158 Tiruppattur assembly constituency were wrongly sent to No. 50 Tiruppattur constituency due to a similar constituency name and were subsequently rejected. He alleged that instead of rejecting the postal votes, they should have been sent to the correct constituency and counted. He submitted that if such postal votes were counted for No. 158 Tiruppattur constituency, the one-vote margin would not have occurred and Periakaruppan would have received a majority. He thus argued that the election procedures were not followed as per law.

Every Disagreement Between Wife And In-Laws Not Cruelty: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce To Husband

Case Title: R v R

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 466

The Madras High Court has held that every disagreement that a spouse has with parents-in-law cannot be termed as cruelty committed by that spouse against the other spouse. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 466]

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi thus refused to grant divorce to a husband on allegations of cruelty.

Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Dismissal Of Prison Warden Who Served Ganja To Inmates

Case Title: M. Aashik Mohammed v The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the dismissal of a prison warden who was accused of supplying Ganja to prison inmates. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 467]

Justice B Pugalendhi observed that a prison officer had a duty to prevent the introduction of any prohibited articles to the prisoners. In the present case, the court noted that by serving Ganja to the prisoner, the warden had committed a grave misconduct and violation of discipline expected from an officer. The court thus held that the dismissal from service was not disproportionate.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Asking MLAs Who Resigned After Election To Reimburse Election Expenses; Imposes Costs

Case Title: S Kasiramalingam v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 468

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (September 29), dismissed a plea seeking a direction on the MLAs who resigned soon after elections to reimburse the election expenses.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan also imposed a cost of Rs 1 Lakh on the petitioner for seeking the same relief, which had already been dismissed by the court. The court remarked that the plea, styled as a public interest litigation, was nothing but a publicity litigation and was filed with ulterior motive.

Madras High Court Refuses To Recall Order Directing Micro/Nano Plastic Warning Labels On Water, Sugar, Salt; Says Consumer Has Right To Know

Case Title: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) v G. Subramania Koushik

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 469

The Madras High Court has refused to review its decision mandating warning labels on plastic/PET drinking water bottles and salt/sugar packets with respect to the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics.

The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a review application filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), Pet Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE), and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association (FPDWMA).

The court noted that while studies were on the way to test how far the human body could withstand and tolerate micro/nano plastic, its adverse effects were not disputed. The court thus held that the direction was the barest essential requirement at the stage to enable the consumers to make an informed choice.

Kavin Honour Killing Case: Madras High Court Quashes Chargesheet Against Cop Couple, Says Materials Do Not Disclose Offences Alleged

Case Title: Saravanan v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 470

The Madras High Court has quashed the chargesheet filed by the CB-CID against the cop couple, Saravanan and Krishnakumari, accused in the honour killing of Kavin, a techie in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu in 2025.

Veeramani POCSO Case: Madras High Court Refuses To Order CBI Probe, Says SIT Should Be Given Breathing Time

Case Title: Varaaki v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 30) refused to order CBI probe into the POCSO case involving granite baron R Veeramani. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 471]

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that the Tamil Nadu government had formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the offence and the SIT should be given a breathing time to collect all the evidence in connection with the case.

The court also added that the Tamil Nadu police did not have a crystal ball or a magic wand to get all the evidence at once, adding that the SIT should be permitted to carry on the investigation.

Madras High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Election Victory Of Former DMK Minister S Regupathy

Case Title: Regupathy S v Chinthamani C

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 472

The Madras High Court has rejected a plea challenging the victory of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's S Regupathy from Thirumayam Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2026 assembly elections.

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan allowed an application filed by Regupathy to reject the election petition moved by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) candidate from the constituency, Chintamani.

It may be noted that Chintamani had lost to Regupathy by a margin of 1492 votes. The court noted that all the allegations raised by Chintamani were vague and unsupported. Thus, the court was inclined to reject the plea.

Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Case Is Not Suppression If Candidate Had No Knowledge Of It, & Was Ultimately Exonerated: Madras High Court

Case Title: The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board v. P Manikandan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 473

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice M.Dhandapani and Justice N.Dilip Kumar held that non-disclosure of a criminal case does not amount to suppression of information when the candidate had no knowledge of the case and was ultimately exonerated.

It was held by the Bench that the objective should not be merely to determine whether a person is technically involved in a pending criminal case, but to ensure that a young citizen who has not been found guilty is given a fair opportunity to build his life and participate meaningfully in society. The law must protect the legitimate interests of public administration while simultaneously preventing the criminal process, particularly a prolonged or ultimately unfounded criminal proceeding, from becoming an instrument that permanently destroys the career, livelihood and future prospects of the youth.

Minority Aided Institutions Can Appoint Teachers To Sanctioned Vacant Posts Without Prior Permission: Madras High Court

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. The Secretary, St. Josephs College (Autonomous)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 474

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Sakthivel held that minority institutions under Article 30 have the right to fill already-sanctioned vacant teaching posts without prior approval, subject to qualifications and procedural rules, and approval for grant-in-aid cannot be denied arbitrarily.

Madras High Court Rejects Esakki Subaya's Plea Against Election Case, But Paves Way For Bye-Polls In Ambasamudram Constituency

Case Title: Dr E. Subaya @ Esakki Subaya v Kanthimathinathan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 475

The Madras High Court has refused to reject an election petition challenging the victory of former AIADMK MLA Esakki Subaya from the Ambasamudram constituency during the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 475]

Justice PB Balaji noted that the petitioner, a voter from the constituency, had laid down foundational facts, which could be proved only if the parties go for trial. Thus, the court rejected Subaya's argument that the petition lacked cause of action.

The court, however, paved the way for a bye-election in the constituency as the court struck down a relief sought by the voter to declare the candidate who came second as the winner. The court noted that such a relief could be granted only when the constituency had two candidates and not when there were more than 2 candidates, like in the present case.

Madras High Court Directs State To Frame SOP Regulating Captive Elephants At Temple Festivals; Mandates Health & Safety Checks

Case Title: Seva Trust v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 476

The Madras High Court has directed the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for integrating captive elephants in religious ceremonies. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 476]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that elephants hold a significant place in the ancient temple customs, and their use in religious ceremonies could not be left in a legal vacuum. The court highlighted that the traditions should strictly comply with the constitutional values and the State's fundamental duty to show compassion for living creatures.

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi held that the inability of parties to have a child cannot be termed as matrimonial fault of the wife. The court stressed that the object of marriage cannot be reduced to that of procreation.