The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 23, 2026) dismissed a writ petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, who had challenged an amendment to a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on June 19, 2026, against the proposed construction of Mekedatu dam across the Cauvery river by the Karnataka government.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the case after Advocate General (A-G) Vijay Narayan played video clips of the Assembly proceedings to prove that it was, in fact, the amended resolution that was put to vote in the House by Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar and passed uananimously, after no Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) raised any objections.

AIADMK whip’s plaint

The AIADMK whip had approached the court complaining that the amendment, which urges the Centre to constitute a tribunal for resolving the inter-State dispute regarding Mekedatu dam, was not debated at all in the House and that it was introduced at the last moment after almost all the members of the House had expressed their unanimous support to the unamended resolution circulated to them a day before the proceedings.

He said that Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had agreed to carry out the amendment at the request of the Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin and such amendment ought to have been debated before being passed as an unanimous decision taken by the House. Since the amended resolution had been communicated to the Centre as well, the petitioner insisted upon withdrawing the same.

He had also urged the court to quash the portion of the resolution, which demands the constitution of a tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and declare that the unamended resolution, expressing strong opposition to the construction of the proposed dam by the neighbouring State, as having been validly adopted by the Legislative Assembly on June 19, 2026.

A-G plays video clips of proceedings

On the other hand, the A-G played video clips of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition to carry out the amendment, its acceptance by the Chief Minister, and the amended resolution having been put to vote by the Speaker. He told the court it was only the amended resolution that was put to vote and none of the members, including the writ petitioner, raised any objection at that point of time.

The Madras High Court has found that a Caste Hindu had joined the Chennai Port Trust (CPT) in 1982 in a post reserved for a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, served the organisation for 32 years by prolonging the inquiry into his caste status and attained the age of superannuation in 2013 thereby depriving an unknown person, suffering social stigma, of the constitutional benevolence shown by the nation.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed a couple of writ petitions filed by A. Jegannathan and refused to interfere with the State Level Scrutiny Committee’s (SLSC) conclusion that the petitioner actually belonged to Urali Gounder community and not the Urali tribe. The judge refused to direct CPT to pay full pension or release other terminal benefits such as gratuity, leave salary and so on.

He pointed out that a community certificate produced by the petitioner, to claim the benefit of reservation, was referred to the Salem Collector for verification by the CPT way back in 1983 itself. On verification, the revenue officials found that the petitioner had actually studied in Tiruchi district and had been identified as belonging to Urali Gounder community in his school records.

Therefore, in 1984, the Salem Collector informed the CPT that the community certificate was not genuine and that the writ petitioner had failed to prove his tribal status despite having been accorded an opportunity to do so. Aggrieved over it, Mr. Jegannathan filed a writ petition in 1985 and got the Collector’s order quashed in 1986. Then, the High Court also ordered a fesh inquiry.

Accordingly, a fresh inquiry was initiated in 1986 and was concluded in 1990 confirming that the petitioner was a Caste Hindu and not a Scheduled Tribe. He was also discharged from ther services of CPT on September 26, 1990. However, the petitioner filed another writ petition and obtained an interim stay of the discharge order. The High Court once again ordered a re-inquiry into his caste status.

Thereafter, the inquiry got prolonged due to it being shuttled between the SLSC and the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the delay led to his attaining the age of superannuation. It was only in 2021 that the SLSC concluded that the petitioner had produced a bogus community certificate obtained fraudulently with the mala fide intention to derive constitutional benefits meant for a genuine scheduled tribe.

Hence, the petitioner had approached the High Court with the present writ petitions urging it to quash the SLSC’s conclusion since it was passed without hearing him and also to direct CPT to pay him full pension and other terminal benefits. However, on persual of records, the judge found that the SLSC had arrived at the conclusion on the basis of documentary evidence since the petitioner failed to appear for inquiry.

The SLSC had found that the petitioner’s brother, paternal uncles and cousins had given statements that they were not part of any scheduled tribe. The Village Administrative Officer too had confirmed that the petitioner did not belong to the Urali tribe. Since there was overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, the SLSC’s order could not be interfered with on sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the judge concluded.

YouTuber A. Shankar alias ‘Savukku’ Shankar has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to make false statements, fabricate narratives, and disseminate misleading information to the people for the purpose of sensationalism, personal vilification, public attention, online engagement, and financial gain, Indian Police Service (IPS) officer A. Arun has alleged before the Madras High Court.

Filing a defamation suit seeking damages of ₹1 crore, Mr. Arun accused the YouTuber of giving a false impression to the people as if he possessed confidential, authentic, and inside information concerning senior police officers, politicians, public servants, businessmen, corporate entities, and others in positions of responsibility, though he actually presents falsehood as facts.

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi has granted time till September 16, 2026, for Mr. Shankar to respond to the allegations. After hearing senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian for the plaintiff, the judge granted time for the YouTuber’s counsel K. Gowtham Kumar and also advocate Arun C. Mohan for X Corporation to file their counter affidavits to the plaintiff’s applications for interim injunction.

In his plaint, Mr. Arun, a 1998 batch IPS officer of the Tamil Nadu cadre, said he had earned a high degree of respect, reputation, and goodwill throughout his career. He also claimed to have been recognised for his integrity, honesty, professional competence, discipline, and commitment to public service. However, the YouTuber had been targetting the plaintiff for quite sometime, he said.

“The first defendant (Mr. Shankar) has repeatedly abused the freedom of speech and expression and has sought to misuse online platforms for the purpose of tarnishing and damaging the reputation, character, integrity, and professional standing of the plaintiff…The defamatory publications are gravely injurious to personal reputation, professional standing, and family life,” the plaint read.

Listing links to all the offending YouTube videos, X posts, and other defamatory content posted against him by the defendant on social media platforms, Mr. Arun said the YouTuber’s activities were commercially driven, and he was gaining financial incentive to publish sensational falsehoods and defamatory material capable of attracting maximum viewership and engagement.

The court was told that the YouTuber had termed the senior IPS officer a ‘gangster,’ a ‘coolie’ working for political masters, a person who manipulates the criminal justice system for extraneous purposes, a corrupt individual, and so on. In most of the videos, the IPS officer had been referred to by name, and in others, he had been described as ‘Ice cream officer’ or just ‘ice cream,’ the plaint said.

Denying the allegations levelled against him in those videos and X posts, Mr. Arun said the YouTuber had on July 15, 2026, falsely tweeted that there was an income tax search at the residence of the plaintiff and the latter’s wife B. Yamuna Devi, an Indian Revenue Service officer, was also facing corruption charges. Attributing the false information to Central government sources, the tweet had also carried the photographs of the couple.

The plaintiff said the tweet was edited on the same day and replaced with another false, imaginary, and malicious claim that the officials from the Directorate of Enforcement had arrived at the IPS officer’s residence for conducting a search. “The use of photographs coupled with the sensational headline and false attribution to Central government sources was calculated to lend a false appearance of authenticity,” he added.

The Madras High Court, on Monday (August 11, 2025), ordered the commencement of trial in a 10-year-old defamation suit filed by former Indian cricket team captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni seeking ₹100 crore in damages from Zee Media Corporation, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer G. Sampath Kumar, and News Nation Network for having dragged his name in to the IPL betting scam.

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan also appointed an advocate commissioner to record the evidence of Mr. Dhoni on mutually convenient premises, to all the parties involved and their counsel, in Chennai. The advocate commissioner was appointed as Mr. Dhoni’s personal appearance at the High Court, for the examination in chief as well as cross-examination by the defendants, might lead to chaos due to him being a celebrity.

A habeas corpus petition (HCP) has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the preventive detention of B.T. Arasakumar (59), under the Goondas Act on the basis of a complaint accusing him of having collected around ₹100 crore from various private school managements across Tamil Nadu during the previous DMK regime.

A Division Bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan on Monday (August 10, 2026) ordered notice, returnable by four weeks, to the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police on the HCP filed by the detainee’s wife who contended no threat had been caused to public order necessitating his preventive detention.

On June 23, C. Elangovan, secretary of Tamil Nadu Private Schools Federation, had lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police levelling serious charges against Arasakumar who was accused of having collected large sums of money by running an unregistered association named ‘Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association’.

According to the complainant, the detainee had collected money from private school managements by promising to offer services such as obtaining approvals for upgrading schools, gaining permanent recognition, securing building plan approvals and so on “using his proximity” with the then ruling dispensation.

He was also accused of having threatened the private school managements of dire consequences if they reveal about the transactions in public. Hence, the police had registered a First Information Report, arrested and subjected him to custodial interrogation and then invoked the Goondas Act too.

Assailing the preventive detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police A. Amalraj on July 11, the petitioner said her husband had been taking efforts for long to get the ‘Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association’ registered but it could not be done due to existence of another association with the same name.

She claimed the complaint was the result of a civil dispute between office-bearers of different associations representing private schools in the State and it would have no bearing on maintenance of public order which alone could be a reason to invoke the Goondas Act for preventive detention.

“The detenu is aged about 59 years and has been continuously cooperating with the investigation. He is suffering from severe neck and knee pain, diabetes and hypertension and has remained in custody for a considerable period,” the petitioner said and sought interim bail too pending disposal of the HCP.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday directed the Director-General of Police to constitute within 48 hours a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police from the CB-CID or another specialised unit unconnected with Sivaganga district, to probe the death of a pregnant woman reported in the district. The woman’s family has alleged dowry-related cruelty.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri directed the Director of Medical Education and Research to constitute the neutral multidisciplinary medical board within 24 hours. The neutral board should take custody of the body and commence the re-post-mortem examination within 48 hours of its constitution. The Collector and Superintendent of Police should provide all assistance for the dignified transportation and burial of the body in accordance with the religious customs of the family, the court directed.

The court was hearing the petition filed by S. Fathima Beevi, mother of the deceased Afrin, of Tirupattur in Sivaganga district. Afrin was married to Mohammed Ashraf in 2026. According to the petitioner, gold jewellery of 19.5 sovereigns, household articles, and customary seer (dowry) articles were given to Afrin and her matrimonial family.

It is alleged that shortly after marriage, Afrin complained that her husband and his relatives demanded an additional 5.5 sovereigns of gold jewellery. The petitioner alleged that Afrin was subjected to physical assault, mental cruelty, humiliation, intimidation, and continuous harassment.

It is stated that Afrin informed her parental family that she was unable to tolerate the cruelty inflicted upon her. Though the petitioner and her family attempted to pacify the dispute and preserve the marriage, the alleged harassment continued.

According to the petitioner, Afrin was approximately four months pregnant at the time. On the night of June 16, Afrin allegedly contacted the petitioner over the telephone and cried uncontrollably. She is said to have stated that she could no longer tolerate the cruelty and requested that she be taken back to her parental home.

On June 17, around 8.40 a.m., Afrin again spoke to the petitioner. This is stated to have been the last meaningful communication between them. Around 9.50 a.m., Afrin’s husband allegedly informed the petitioner that Afrin had locked herself inside a room in the house.

The petitioner and her relatives reached the place at around 10.10 a.m. The petitioner raised doubts about the claim that the victim had died by suicide and said the room appeared to have been secured from outside. She claimed to have noticed visible injuries, including a prominent reddish mark over the posterior aspect of the left shoulder, and other suspicious marks on the body. The petitioner sought the transfer of the investigation to an independent SIT, preservation of all material and electronic evidence, constitution of a neutral medical board, and a re-post-mortem examination of the body.

(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416, Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050 and Speak2Us mental health helpline 9375493754.)

K. Vellathurai of Tiruppur district, one of the accused in the case pertaining to the fraudulent registration of the Palani math land, has filed a petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Justice K. Rajasekar directed the petitioner to implead the CB-CID as a respondent and posted the matter for hearing to July 22.

The petitioner claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser, who had no need to enrich himself out of the transaction and make a profit out of it.

He said the document had already been cancelled. He does not want to have any claim with respect to the property, he said, and sought anticipatory bail.

Sub-Registrar gets bail

lThe High Court had on July 17 granted interim bail, till August 4, to another accused, Sub-Registrar Justin Manikandan Subramanian, who has been placed under suspension in the case of fraudulent registration of the Palani math land.

Meanwhile, CB-CID officials questioned former Joint Commissioner of Palani temple Marimuthu and other officials. A three-member committee formed by the Registration Department to conduct a thorough probe into the fraudulent registration has begun its inquiry.

The Tamil Nadu government is in the process of formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for speeding up prosecution in sexual crimes against women and children, Advocate General Vijay Narayan told the Madras High Court on Monday (June 22, 2026).

Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, the A-G said, the government had also decided to give utmost importance to the upgradation of infrastructure required for speedy investigation and trial.

He said, at present, not all regional forensic science laboratories in the State were equipped with DNA testing facilities but the present government intends to increase the number of such facilities, in order to reduce the delay in concluding police investigations.

Stating that the delay in completing the investigation and filing charge sheets occur mostly due to the delay in obtaining forensic science reports, he said that the government had decided to give an impetus to upgrading all kinds of infrastructure required for speeding up the process.

What is the case about?

The submissions were made during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a 26-year-old rape survivor complaining about the delay in commencing the trial in her case. The A-G said that the petitioner had been raped by two policemen at Tiruvannamalai in September 2025.

He informed the Division Bench that a single judge of the High Court had on June 4, 2026, dismissed the petitions filed by the accused to discharge them from the case. Thereafter, the trial court had framed charges against them on June 17, 2026, and the trial is set to begin on June 24, 2026.

The A-G also impressed upon the need for the High Court to sensitise judicial officers regarding the conduct of trial in such cases on a day-to-day basis so that it could be completed within two months as mandated under Section 346(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

After hearing him, the Division Bench directed the State government and the Registrar General of the High Court to file a comprehensive report within two weeks listing out all facts and figures regarding pending sexual offence cases against women and children and the infrastructural requirements.

YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar, 50, has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) A. Arun in light of the adverse findings and observations made against him by the court on May 29, 2026.

The petitioner highlighted that a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan had censured the officer for having passed a preventive detention order against realtor Santosh Sharma “for extraneous reasons” during his stint as the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police.

Then, the Division Bench had also observed in its verdict that the police officer was “habituated” to passing such detention orders under the Goondas Act and cited instances of similar orders passed by the same officer against the writ petitioner, as well as journalist R. Varaaki, having been quashed by the High Court.

What had the court said?

The Bench had said that the order against the realtor had been passed “deliberately” though there was no threat to public order because of him and that he only faced some cheating cases, including one registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by DMDK Rajya Sabha member L.K. Sudhish’s wife S. Poornajothi.

“The detaining authority (Mr. Arun) knew fully well that the case on hand does not fall within the category of public order. He also knew that he was placing reliance on events that had taken place not less than two years earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a direct recruit to IPS. He has served in various capacities. If with 28 years of experience, such an order can be passed, it would only mean that it was done deliberately and with full knowledge of the law and the facts involved,” the Bench had written.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Swaminathan had also said: “We express our severe anguish and displeasure. We reject the explanation given by Thiru Arun, IPS. The impugned (under challenge) order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such remark. But we are constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is habituated to issuing such orders, most of which have come to the notice of this court and quashed.”

Mr. Shankar, in his present writ petition, said that the remarks made by the court against Mr. Arun were not casual or incidental observations but “constitute a serious judicial censure regarding the exercise of preventive detention powers, which directly implicates the bonafides and propriety of the action taken by the said officer in a matter affecting personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”

A judicial finding that the police officer had misused his power “for extraneous reasons” raises serious concerns of abuse of authority and warrants immediate scrutiny, the petitioner said and lamented that no action whatsoever had been taken against Mr. Arun so far, despite the petitioner having given a representation in this regard to the Vigilance Commissioner on June 2, 2026.

He also stated that continued failure to act against the officer despite clear judicial findings would adversely affect public trust in the administration of justice, especially when the officer concerned was at present serving as the DVAC, a position that demands highest standards of integrity and accountability.

The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by a single judge on May 14, 2025 appointing an interim administrator for a society which runs Chettinad Vidyashram School in Chennai and remitted the matter to the single judge for fresh consideration.

The Bench comprising Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi requested the single judge to afford an opportunity to all the parties concerned to file their counter affidavits before passing orders on a plea to appoint a Special Officer, by the District Registrar of Societies, to administer the society.

The requistion was made while disposing of a batch of appeals filed by some of the members of the Managing Committee. Senior counsel Krishna Srinivasan and others had appeared for the appellants and assailed the single judge’s order on many grounds including the failure to grant opportunity to file counter affidavits.

“However, having regard to the paramount interest and smooth administration of the educational institution,” the Division Bench ordered the meetings of the Managing Committee must stand deferred until the single judge rehears the issue and passes necessary orders as expeditiously as possible.

Click here to read/download the court order