Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: May 04 to May 10, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 To 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 NOMINAL INDEX Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division), 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198 P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199 Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200 S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 N Bharathirajan v The High Court of Madras, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 202 S Rajadurai Lingam v The State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 203 REPORT Madras High Court Quashes YouTuber Varaaki's Preventive Detention, Imposes ₹50K Costs On State For 'Targeting' Him Case Title: Neelima v The Additional Chief Secretary and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 197 The Madras High Court has recently set aside the detention order passed against a YouTuber, Varaaki, noting that the State had unnecessarily targeted him. In doing so, the bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan also directed the state to pay Rs. 50,000 to him for his illegal detention. It may be noted that in December 2025, the court had released Varaaki on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks, on personal bond. During that time, the court had remarked that the state should not routinely approve the detention orders and that while detaining a person, there should be application of mind. The bench had also remarked that when there was a failure on state's part to protect the fundamental rights, the citizens could even sue State for appropriate relief including claiming damages. Madras High Court Directs Consideration Of Emergency Visa For Sri Lankan National To Aid Ailing Mother, Flags Disproportionate Blacklisting Case Title: Agambal Meiyappan v The Joint Secretary (Foreigners Division) Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 198 The Madras High Court has ordered the Indian High Commission in Colombo to consider granting emergency visa to a Sri Lankan national to come to India to aid his ailing mother. Justice M Dhandapani noted that there were no adverse materials against the person, and in such circumstances, his continued blacklisting would be disproportionate. The court also noted that the mother was a senior citizen who was in need of immediate care. Thus, citing humanitarian grounds, the court was inclined to grant him limited relief. Throwing Footwear At Devotees A 'Grave Affront' To Faith, Must Be Dealt With Iron Hands: Madras High Court Orders Strict Action Case Title: P Sundaravadivel v The District Collector and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 199 The Madras High Court recently criticised the acts of certain persons who threw footwear (chappals) at devotees participating in the procession of Lord Kallazhar Temple during the Chithirai festival in Madurai. Justice Victoria Gowri said that such acts could not be brushed aside as stray acts of hooliganism, as such acts not only affected the public order but also offended constitutional morality. The court also added that India's secular spirit did not require an indifference to religion but required the protection of every faith against unlawful insult and disturbance. The court observed that the principle of fraternity embodied in the preamble of the Constitution obligated the State to ensure that sacred religious traditions were celebrated in peace, dignity, and mutual respect. The court also noted that though maintenance of public order was the duty of the executive, when disruption was apprehended, judicial directions were warranted. “Vexatious Claim To Grab Property”: Madras High Court Rejects Suit Against Boney Kapoor, Daughters Over Sridevi's Property Case Title: Boney Kapoor and Others v. MC Sivakami and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 200 The Madras High Court has allowed a plea filed by filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor seeking to reject a plaint filed against them in connection with the late actor Sridevi's property near the East Coast Road. Noting that the cause of action raised against the trio is not sustainable, Justice TV Tamilselvi remarked that the “vexatious” claim was made only to grab the property by abusing the process of law, and the same was not permissible under law. The court thus noted that the trial judge's order, refusing to reject the plaint, was liable to be set aside. “Advocate May Persuade, But Not Pressurize”: Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Misconduct Proceedings Against Madurai Lawyers Case Title: S Rajmohan v The Judicial Magistrate Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 201 The Madras High Court recently refused to quash proceedings initiated against a group of lawyers for disrupting the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No. V at Madurai. Noting that there was no justification to quash the proceedings, Justice Victoria Gowri...

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: May 04 to May 10, 2026

Upasana Sajeev

Tags