DMK Defamation Lawsuit Allowed
Madras High Court allows DMK to file defamation suit against Tamil Nadu ministers.
Anonymous
Key Points
1
The DMK said it needed the High Court’s leave because the TVK IT wing’s office and the headquarters of X Corp, Meta Platforms and YouTube were outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
2
In response to the ministers’ objection about prior notice, DMK counsel J. Ravindran argued that they were named in the suit as individuals, not in their official capacities as ministers.
3
The DMK alleged that the ministers’ statements were intended to gain political mileage ahead of the Madurantakam and Dharapuram by-elections and to cover up the government’s alleged failures.
4
The DMK’s petition said the ministers made the allegations in media interviews, while the TVK IT wing posted similar claims on X.
The Madras High Court allowed the DMK to file a ₹1.01-crore defamation suit against Tamil Nadu ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar, plus the ruling TVK's IT wing, over statements about a granite businessman accused in a child sexual abuse case News Today Net. The DMK claims the ministers and TVK made false allegations that the party shielded R. Veeramani when police registered a POCSO case on October 7, 2025 — just one day after receiving a complaint and video ETV Bharat.
The court permitted the suit to proceed without ruling on whether the statements were actually defamatory or awarding damages yet Indian Express. The DMK is seeking compensation, an order barring further statements, and removal of related social-media posts and videos. Veeramani remains accused in the underlying POCSO case.
Why the DMK Needed Court Permission
The DMK required the High Court's leave because the defendants' offices and the headquarters of X Corp, Meta Platforms, and YouTube were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction India Today. The party could not file suit directly without first getting judicial approval. This procedural step clears the way for the actual defamation case to move forward in the coming weeks.
Ministers' Prior Notice Objection Rejected
The ministers opposed permission, claiming the suit was defective because they received no prior notice News Today Net. DMK counsel J. Ravindran countered that the ministers were named as individuals, not in their official capacities. This distinction mattered: officials sued in their personal capacity have fewer procedural protections than those sued in their government roles.
Allegations Tied to Upcoming By-Elections
The DMK alleged the ministers made accusations to gain political advantage before the Madurantakam and Dharapuram by-elections India Today. The party claims the statements were also meant to cover up the ruling government's alleged failures in handling the case. Ministers made the allegations in media interviews, while TVK's IT wing posted similar claims on X (formerly Twitter).
DMK's Defense on Police Timing
The DMK argued that police acted swiftly when registering the POCSO case — moving from complaint and video receipt to formal charges in just one day ETV Bharat. The party insisted there was no delay or political interference under its previous government. This timeline forms the core of the DMK's defense against allegations of shielding the accused businessman.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
10
Articles
3
Reach
13
Topics
A
AnonymousAuthor
