Aadhav Arjuna; M.Okay. Stalin
| Picture Credit score: B. Jothi Ramalingam; S. Siva Saravanan
The Madras Excessive Courtroom on Friday (August 28, 2026) ordered notices to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president M.Okay. Stalin and the DMK IT Wing on a civil go well with filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Public Works and Sports activities Growth Aadhav Arjuna, in search of damages of ₹1 crore for an X submit, which claimed that an accused in a narcotics case, John Britto, was his relative.
Justice Okay. Govindarajan Thilakavadi ordered the notices, returnable by September 15, 2026, after listening to the preliminary submissions made by the Minister’s counsel A.P. Suryaprakasam, who contended that the X submit was ex facie false and extremely defamatory. The decide additionally took notice of the truth that senior counsel J. Ravindran had entered look on behalf of the defendants.
The plaintiff wished the courtroom to declare that the X submit shared by the DMK IT Wing on its official deal with on June 8, 2026, was defamatory and order the fee of compensation to him for the lack of repute, private damage, and psychological agony brought on by the false assertion.
Claiming that the submit was not an remoted act of some social media functionary of the DMK however had been made on the directions of former Chief Minister Mr. Stalin, “who workouts full management over the affairs of the political get together,” the Minister urged the courtroom to grant a everlasting injunction restraining Mr. Stalin and the DMK IT Wing from publishing such defamatory statements in future.
Minister calls for public apology
The plaintiff additional insisted that the defendants should even be directed to publish and flow into unconditional apologies in Tamil and English, not solely through the DMK IT Wing’s social media accounts but in addition in broadly circulated Tamil and English newspapers and on tv channels. He wished the apology to be printed with equal prominence to that with which the defamatory assertion was made.
The opposite prayer of the Minister was to direct the defendants to forthwith delete the defamatory submit to the fullest extent doable, together with the screenshots of the submit that have been in circulation on social media. He sought a path to the defendants to give up all digital information associated to the creation of the defamatory submit and pay prices incurred for the submitting of the current go well with.
The plaintiff asserted that he had no connection by any means with the narcotics case accused John Britto, who was reportedly the mind behind the smuggling of ₹258 crore price of banned substances. He mentioned, in truth, his relative P. John Britto had lodged a grievance with the Larger Chennai Commissioner of Police saying he was not the identical John Britto concerned within the narcotics case and but, he had been dragged in public discourse because of an analogous identify.
Printed – August 28, 2026 11:43 am IST
