The Madras High Court at Madurai granted bail to an air passenger after eight vacuum-sealed packets of suspected hydroponic weed were allegedly found under false bottoms in his trolley bags at Trichy airport (paras 2, 6). It extracted its own order of 02.09.2026, which had refused to treat hydroponic weed as commercial quantity on an untested THC claim, and weighed the quantity, the pending chemical analysis report, his custody and the absence of previous cases (paras 5-6).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court headed by the Chief Justice dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition that sought statewide enforcement of the rules on installing and immersing Vinayagar idols, after the petitioner asked to withdraw it (paras 1-2). The petitioner was given liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, with no order as to costs (para 2). The written order gives no other reasons.
A Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court dismissed a public interest petition by a goldsmith against the award of a contract to Joyalukkas India Limited to supply 4,41,667 gold rings for newborns under the Thaimaman Thanga Mothiram Thittam, after it quoted Rs.0.01 per ring in charges (paras 1, 2.3). The petitioner left the scheme and every tender condition unchallenged, pleaded inconsistently, and was a stranger to the tender (paras 9-12).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai ordered closure of a TASMAC liquor shop at Vellithirumutham, Trichy, and barred an FL-2 licence for a recreation club nearby, holding that the distance from a National Highway is the aerial distance, not the road distance a vehicle must travel (paras 13, 15). At 55.7 and 71 metres, both fell within the Supreme Court's 220-metre limit in K. Balu (paras 12-13).
A Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court held that the State cannot demand an Environmental Clearance Certificate or Pollution Control Board approval before processing an application for an Essentiality Certificate for a medical college, since neither is among the criteria in Form 2 of the 1999 Regulations (paras 17-18). It set aside a single judge's order and directed the State to decide Chettinad Academy's application within Form 2 (para 20).
The Madras High Court answered a death reference against the prosecution and acquitted a man sentenced to death under the POCSO Act for alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault on five children (paras 1, 30). It found material improvements and signs of tutoring in the children's evidence, no medical corroboration, and a trial that denied him effective legal representation (paras 17, 21, 28). Compensation paid to the children need not be recovered (para 29).
The Madras High Court dismissed two writ petitions on the Kudamuzhukku (Kumbabishekam) of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, fixed for 17.09.2026 (para 120). A Tamil Velvi Asiriyar's plea to perform the sacred-fire rituals in Tamil could not be granted while the issue is sub judice before the Supreme Court, and equal recitation of Tamil hymns with Sanskrit could not be ordered without a law, since a writ court implements and declares the law and does not make it (para 120).
The Madras High Court at Madurai granted bail to a man accused of bringing 5.20 kg of suspected hydroponic weed/ganja from Phuket through Kuala Lumpur to Trichy airport (paras 1-2, 12). With no chemical analysis report on record, it refused to treat the seizure as commercial quantity on the prosecution's THC argument; treated as ganja, the limit is 20 kg, so the Section 37 embargo was not applied at the bail stage (paras 8-10).
The Madras High Court at Madurai held that a man who exposed himself to an 11-year-old boy without any physical contact could not be convicted of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but was guilty of sexual harassment under Section 11(i) (paras 11-12). It altered the conviction and reduced the sentence from three years to one year of rigorous imprisonment (paras 5, 15-16).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai held that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act can be presented in the court within whose limits the husband resides, since the wife may choose that forum and territorial objections can be waived (paras 6-7). It set aside the Thanjavur Family Court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction and itself dissolved the marriage (para 9).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai dismissed a court employee's plea for promotion as Bench Clerk Grade I, holding that converting her charge memo from Rule 17B to Rule 17A in February 2026 did not relate back to the original memo of July 2025 (para 7). She was rightly overlooked first because of the pending charge and then because of the currency of a censure (para 7).
The Madras High Court quashed the case against fourteen men accused of gathering at Gudalur and raising slogans in support of the Palestinian people, holding that an assembly is unlawful only when its common object falls within the statutory categories, such as using criminal force or committing an offence (paras 7-8). The charge sheet showed no criminal force and no ingredients of wrongful restraint under Section 126(2) BNS (para 8).