The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a ban on IPL matches in Tamil Nadu during the election period.

The petitioner argued that hosting matches could violate the Model Code of Conduct and influence voters. However, the Court found no merit in the plea, observing that cricket matches are a form of entertainment and cannot be stopped on speculative grounds.

It emphasized that any actual violation of the Model Code would fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission, which is competent to take necessary action.

The Court ultimately remarked that people should be allowed to “enjoy the match.”

[T. Prabhakaran v. Chief Election Commissioner]

The Madras High Court held that the Governor is constitutionally bound by the State Cabinet's aid and advice regarding the premature release of convicts under Article 161.

The Bench clarified that the Governor cannot exercise independent discretion or reject recommendations for remission, regardless of personal agreement with the advice.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Maru Ram and AG Perarivalan, the Court emphasized that the Governor acts as a constitutional head and must follow the elected government's decision.

The Court noted that any challenge to such Cabinet decisions must be addressed through judicial review rather than gubernatorial override.

[Eswaran v. State of Madras & Ors.]

The Madras High Court has observed that consumption of alcohol is a personal choice, and the mere presence of a licensed liquor shop does not by itself constitute public nuisance.

The Court noted that a shop operating with a valid licence and within legal limits cannot be shut down solely based on general objections.

It clarified that authorities can take action only if there is specific evidence of nuisance, disturbance, or violation of statutory conditions.

The ruling came while dealing with a plea seeking action against a liquor outlet alleged to be causing inconvenience.

[T Sathiskumar v. The State Government of Tamil Nadu]

The Madras High Court has held that mere use of the words “Waqf” or “Mosque” in a document does not automatically create a public waqf.

The Court emphasised that there must be a clear dedication or declaration of property for a public charitable or religious purpose.

In this case, the petitioner challenged the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board’s notification declaring his property as a public waqf, arguing it was a private family waqf.

The Court agreed, observing that without proper intention and legal dedication, such property cannot be treated as public waqf.

[M Sirajudeen Sayeed (died) & Ors. v. The Tamil Nadu Waqf Board & Anr.]

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a PIL arising from a custodial death where the deceased’s family allegedly refused to conduct the last rites and used the body as part of a protest seeking action against authorities.

The Court noted that the incident was already under investigation and criticised the petition as a “publicity interest litigation.”

It observed that a dead body cannot be used as a means of protest, as it violates human dignity.

Emphasising Article 21, the Bench held that the right to a decent and timely burial is a fundamental right, and declined to interfere.

[C.Selvakumar v. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.]

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that making false criminal allegations against a spouse amounts to mental cruelty and can be a valid ground for divorce.

The case involved a husband who claimed that his wife had filed false complaints and made serious allegations, causing him mental distress and damaging his reputation. While the Family Court had earlier refused divorce, the High Court disagreed.

It observed that misusing criminal law to harass a spouse goes beyond normal marital disputes.

The Court clarified that even if the couple briefly lived together later, such acts of cruelty are not erased, and granted divorce.

[Muthukumar v. Karpagavalli]

The Madras High Court dismissed a "frivolous" plea seeking permission for a daily 14-hour protest until the "World War" ends.

The Court termed the request for an indeterminate, recurring assembly at a busy Theni junction as an abuse of constitutional jurisdiction.

The Court held that while the right to protest is cherished, it is not an absolute right to occupy any space indefinitely. It further slammed the petitioner’s disparaging remarks against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Muthuramalinga Thevar while refusing alternative venues.

Observing that judicial time is a valuable public resource, the Court imposed a ₹50,000 fine, with a default sentence of one-day imprisonment.

[S Prabhu v. District Administration]

The Madras High Court has refused to grant an immediate stay on the screening of the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge following an urgent mention by an advocate.

The petitioner sought a ban on the movie in Tamil Nadu until the conclusion of the 2026 Legislative Assembly elections, alleging that its biased political commentary violates the Model Code of Conduct. 

The Bench noted that the film had already been released on March 19.

The Court directed the lawyer to file a formal petition before seeking relief, declining to intervene solely based on an oral mention.

[Sheela v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.]

The Madras High Court held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used by a husband to secure the return of his wife if she has voluntarily left and chosen to live with another man.

The Court emphasized that habeas corpus is meant only for cases of illegal detention, not personal or marital disputes.

Since the woman was an adult acting of her own free will, no coercion or unlawful custody was established.

The bench clarified that such situations fall within the realm of matrimonial or civil remedies, not constitutional writ jurisdiction, reinforcing the autonomy and personal liberty of individuals.

[S Murgan v. The Superintendent of Police & Ors.]

The Madras High Court expressed concern over the "terrible rat race" in education, noting that parents often prioritize medical and engineering admissions over holistic learning.

The Court observed that students are frequently pressured to drop challenging subjects or mother tongues to focus exclusively on NEET preparation.

The Court was hearing a plea from a father seeking permission for his daughter to write Mathematics as an additional subject after she initially dropped it for Physical Education under NEET pressure.

Noting that the student had studied Mathematics in Class XI, the Court directed CBSE to allow her to appear for the supplementary examination.

[B Shajimon v. UOI & Ors.]

The Madras High Court set aside a single judge’s order dismissing a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark “777 Oil.”

The Court held that the trademarks “777 Oil” and “Dr. JRK’s 777 Oil” remain valid and registered in favour of J.R.K’s Research and Pharmaceuticals.

It noted that the rival mark “Sanjeevi 777 Oil” had already been ordered to be removed from the trademark register by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and that order had attained finality.

The Court also held that reliance on an unproven email without a mandatory Section 65B certificate was improper. It decreed the suit, restrained infringement, and directed surrender of infringing goods.

[M/s. J.R.K’s Research & Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd v. M/s. Sanjeevi Pharma]

The Madras High Court held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied across employees working under different service structures.

The case involved a lineman employed by Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., a state-owned PSU, who sought salary parity with linemen working in government departments.

The Court observed that employees of public sector undertakings and government departments are governed by distinct service rules, recruitment processes, and financial structures. Since their service conditions are fundamentally different, pay parity cannot be claimed.

The Division Bench therefore set aside the earlier order that had directed the State to grant equal pay.

Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari has been appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court following a notification by the Union Government based on the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium.

He took oath on 6th March 2026, with the oath administered by Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi. Prior to this elevation, Justice Dharmadhikari was serving as a judge of the Kerala High Court, and his parent High Court is the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

He began his legal career in 1992 and was appointed as an additional judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2016 before becoming a permanent judge in 2018.

He succeeds Chief Justice M. M. Shrivastava, who recently retired.

The Madras High Court observed that young men frequently face criminalization under the POCSO Act due to parental opposition to consensual adolescent relationships.

While setting aside the conviction of a man sentenced to 20 years in prison, Justice N Mala noted that such cases often arise when girls are pressured by parents to initiate proceedings.

The Court acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution failed to legally prove the victim’s age, relying on photocopies instead of original documents.

Further directing the Tamil Nadu government to conduct awareness campaigns to prevent the misuse of the Act in genuine teenage relationships.

[Mahesh v. State of Tamil Nadu]