NOMINAL INDEX

Thavamanidevi v The Principle Secretary to Prime Minister, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

G Marimuthu v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

Tamil Rajendiran @ R.Rajendiran v/s The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

XXX v The Tamil Nadu Nurses And Midwives Council and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

APS v NIL, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

Chettinad Academy of Research and Education v The State of TN and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

State of Tamil Nadu v Chandran, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

S Anbumani v The Superintendent of Police and Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

Kannan v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

Mohanraj and Another v The Commisisoner and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

S v S, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

Raj G v The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

Dr R Karpagam v Union of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

PP Mohamed and Others v State, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

P. Chandra Vs. The Principal District Judge, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

REPORT

“Policy Decision”: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Include OBC Category In Caste Census

Case Title: Thavamanidevi v The Principle Secretary to Prime Minister

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking to include the OBC category in the caste census. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 428]

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel held that the matter was a policy decision of the government and the individual choice of the person giving data, as at times the person may not choose to state their caste. The court also noted that the new census procedure had already started and thus, the rules governing the same would prevail.

Different Faiths Can Co-Exist, Mere Law & Order Apprehension No Ground To Stop Church Near Temple: Madras High Court

Case Title: G Marimuthu v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

The Madras High Court recently refused to interfere with the construction of a Christian Church near a Hindu Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429]

The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar noted that the apprehension of law and order expressed by the petitioner could not be a ground to interfere with the Collector's order allowing the construction, especially when the field inspection by the appropriate authorities had not disclosed any disputes.

The court thus observed that the peaceful existence of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely based on unsustainable apprehension.

Can't Direct Equal Recitation Of Tamil Hymns Alongside Sanskrit At Meenakshi Temple Consecration In Absence Of Law: Madras High Court

Case Title: Tamil Rajendiran @ R.Rajendiran v/s The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed pleas seeking permission to perform Velvi Kunda Nigalvugal (sacred fire ritual) and permit recitation of Tamil spiritual hymns on an “equal footing” with Sanskrit during the upcoming Kumbabishegam (consecreation ceremony) at Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 430]

Justice C. Saravanan held that a writ court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot make laws in the absence of an enabling statutory or delegated framework, observing that “it is for the Legislature or the Executive to take a call” on whether people from outside of the temple be allowed to participate in such events.

Madras High Court Directs Nurses Council To Record Transgender Man As 'Male' In All Records

Case Title: XXX v The Tamil Nadu Nurses And Midwives Council and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council to correct the records related to a transgender man who had undergone a sex-change operation, and to record his identity as male instead of transgender or transgender male. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 431]

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the KS Puttaswamy judgment, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the right to construct own identity is part of the fundamental right to privacy and thus, the authorities were duty-bound to give effect to the privacy right of the man.

The court also took note of Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which provided that after a transgender person underwent surgery to change gender, and after submitting an application, the District Magistrate was to issue a certificate indicating change in gender. The section further states that any person holding such certificate of identity would be entitled to change the first name in all official documents relating to the identity of the person.

'Law Alone Not Enough, Judges Should Also Play Ball': Madras High Court Grants Mutual Consent Divorce After Family Court Declined Jurisdiction

Case Title: APS v NIL

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432

The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of a Family Court, Thanjavur, refusing to grant mutual divorce to a couple, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 432].

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice MD Sumathi remarked that though the Special Marriage Act provides for dissolution of marriage without much adjudication when there is consensus between the parties, the law alone was not enough and the judge should also play ball.

Environmental Clearance, Pollution Control Board Approval Not Mandatory For Essentiality Certificate Of Medical Institution:Madras High Court

Case Title: Chettinad Academy of Research and Education v The State of TN and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433

The Madras High Court recently held that an Environmental Clearance Certificate and Approval from the Pollution Control Board are not necessary documents for obtaining an Essentiality Certificate for establishing a medical institution. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 433]

It may be noted that an Essentiality Certificate is issued by the State giving its opinion on whether a medical college is needed in a given area.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that though the certificate and approval were mandatory before constructing or commissioning a medical institution, they were not part of the qualifying criteria prescribed for obtaining an Essentiality certificate. The court thus held that lack of environmental clearance could not be a ground for the state to withhold the processing of the Essentiality Certificate.

Madras High Court Acquits Death Row Prisoner Accused Of Sexually Abusing 5 Minors, Says 'Draconian' POCSO Provisions Weaponised

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v Chandran

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434

The Madras High Court recently set aside the death sentence imposed on a man accused of sexually abusing 5 minor children. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 434]

The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the prosecution case suffered from material inconsistencies, omissions and deficiencies which create a reasonable doubt. The court added that when such doubt arises, the rule of law requires acquittal.

The court also agreed with the contention of the accused that the testimonies of the victims and their parents were in the nature of a rehearsed or regurgitated version, which suggested tutoring or coaching.

The court also noted that the accused was not given a fair trial, which caused prejudice to him and affected his fundamental guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Madras High Court Asks Police To Permit Ganesh Idol For Chaturthi Celebration In Tiruppur, Says 'Worship Is A Fundamental Right'

Case Title: S Anbumani v The Superintendent of Police and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 435

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tiruppur Police to grant permission to the Hindu Munnani to install a Vinayagar (Ganesha) idol in connection with the Vinayaka Chaturthi celebration at Yasin Babu Nagar in Tiruppur.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the police to grant permission on a plea filed by the Executive Committee Member of the Hindu Munnani in Tiruppur.

The petitioner submitted that the organisation proposed to organise Sri Vinayagar Chaturthi festival and procession on September 14, 15, 16 and 17. He added that as part of the celebration, the organisation wanted to install and operate a sound system at the venue, and for the same, an application was submitted on August 11 this year. However, since the application was not acted upon, the organisation had approached the court.

Exhibiting Private Parts To Minor Child Not Sexual Assault But Sexual Harassment: Madras High Court Modifies Sentence

Case Title: Kannan v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436

The Madras High Court recently modified the sentence imposed on a man, accused of showing his male private organ to a minor boy. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 436].

Justice S Karthikeyan noted that the act attributed to the man was that he had shown his male organ to the child. The court remarked that such an act would not constitute sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act but would fall under sexual harassment under Section 11 of the Act.

The court thus noted that the man could not be accused under Section 7, but was instead guilty for offence of sexual harassment under Section 11, punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The court also noted that the man was a plumber and a first time offender, and was thus inclined to impose a lenient sentence on him.

Madras High Court Orders Closure Of TASMAC Shop Near National Highway, Says Shortest Distance Must Be Considered For Liquor Ban

Case Title: Mohanraj and Another v The Commisisoner and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437

The Madras High Court recently directed the District Collector (Trichy), District Manager (TASMAC Trichy), Assistant Commissioner (Prohibition and Excise Department), and the Divisional Excise Officer to close down a TASMAC shop after noting that it was only 55.7 meters away from the National Highway. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 437]

Though it was argued that the distance to be travelled by vehicle to reach the TASMAC shop and a proposed recreational club was 1.4 km, which was within the limits prescribed by the Supreme Court, the bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel held that while considering distance, the actual distance that a person needs to travel was insignificant and the aerial distance would be taken into consideration. The court thus noted that only the shortest distance will be considered for calculating the distance of the liquor shop from the National Highway.

Wife's Frequent Visits To Maternal Home, Pressure To Live Separately Despite Husband Being Only Son Amounted To Cruelty: Madras High Court

Case Title: S v S

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

The Madras High Court recently held that a wife, forcing an only son to leave the joint family to set up a separate residence and going to her maternal house frequently without reason, would constitute cruelty on the husband. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 438]

The bench of Justice PT Asha and Justice N Mala thus refused to interfere with an order of a Family Court, granting divorce to the husband on the grounds of cruelty.

The court remarked that the relationship of a husband and wife was reciprocal and could not be dealt as per the dictation of either of the spouses. The court added that when the wife visits the matrimonial home frequently, without any valid reason, it creates a sense of insecurity in the husband's mind, as he may be left with a fear of the wife leaving him.

Madras High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Award Of Tender To Joyalukkas For CM Vijay's Newborn Gold Ring Scheme

Case Title: Raj G v The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the acceptance of a bid from Joy Alukkas and the awarding of the tender to the jewellery company for the CM Vijay's Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 439]

The Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam is a scheme introduced by the TVK Government to distribute 1 gram gold rings of 22 carat purity to newborn children in government hospitals.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that the petitioner was not one of the tenderers and had no personal stake in the award. Highlighting the limited power of the court to interfere in tender processes, the court said that when the other tenderers who had participated in the process did not have any grievance, the court could not set aside the tender.

Madras High Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Implementation Of Guidelines For Idol Immersion During Ganesh Chaturthi

Case Title: Dr R Karpagam v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440

The Madras High Court has refused to entertain a plea seeking directions to the State to take strict and time-bound measures and ensure that the guidelines with respect to idol immersion issued by the Central Pollution Control Board are followed during the Vinayaga Chaturthi celebrations. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 440]

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan refused to entertain the plea filed by a social activist, noting that the National Green Tribunal was already considering the issue. The court thus dismissed the plea as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedies before the appropriate forum.

Raising Slogans In Support Of Palestine Not Enough To Make Assembly 'Unlawful': Madras High Court Quashes Case

Case Title: PP Mohamed and Others v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441

The Madras High Court has quashed a case registered against a group of men for assembling and raising slogans in support of Palestine and against the genocide being perpetrated against its people. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 441]

Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that the men had not shown any criminal force or committed any mischief or crime or tried to take possession of property or wrongfully restrained someone. Thus, finding no reason to continue the prosecution, the court quashed the case against them.

Conversion Of Charge From Serious To Non Serious Provision Shall Not Relate Back To Date Of Charge, Cant Consider For Promotion: Madras High court

Case Name : P.Chandra Vs. The Principal District Judge, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice M.Dhandapani and Justice N.Dilip Kumar held that the conversion of a disciplinary charge from Rule 17B to Rule 17A does not relate back to the original charge memo date, and the currency of a censure punishment bars promotion consideration under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Service Act, 2016. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 442]

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

Very Difficult To Get Corruption Cases Registered Against Powerful Men In This Country: Madras High Court Remarks

Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v S Vimala IPS

Case No: Cont P 2012 of 2025

The Madras High Court on Monday (September 7) remarked that it is almost impossible to get corruption cases registered against powerful men in this country.

Justice Anand Venkatesh made the oral observations while hearing a contempt petition filed by NGO Arappor Ayakkam against the delay in proceedings against former Minister SP Velumani and three IAS officers in a tender irregularities case.

Madras High Court Questions Confidentiality Of Look Out Circulars,Says Affected Person Should Know Why He Is Facing Adverse Proceedings

Case Title: K. Padmanabhan v The Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Case No: WP (Crl) No 2254 of 2026

The Madras High Court recently remarked that our country does not follow a kafkaite trial and gives an accused the right to know why he is facing adverse proceedings.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said that a trial in the country operates in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and any person who is affected by proceedings should be made aware of it.

The court thus directed the CBI and the Immigration Bureau to file an affidavit explaining the reasons why the LOCs were being treated as confidential and to explain how a person should obtain permission to travel abroad before the final report is filed and taken cognisance of by the court.

Madras High Court Refuses To Stay Tamil Nadu's Plan To Introduce Digital Driving Licences, RCs; Issues Notice On Plea

Case Title: Force Identification Private Limited v State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: WP No 37110 of 2026

The Madras High Court, on Friday (September 11), refused to stay the new proposal by Tamil Nadu government to introduce digital driving licenses and registration certificates in the state.

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan has issued notice to the State Government and the Transport Commissioner in a plea challenging the communication issued by the Commissioner. The court also asked the State to file its counter to the plea. The court, however, refrained from granting any interim stay on the proposal.