Ruling on the DMK’s plea against Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, the Madras High Court has granted the party leave to sue them for defamation over remarks they made about it in connection with the Veeramani POCSO case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday allowed an application by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking leave to sue Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, among others, for allegedly defamatory statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite businessman R. Veeramani [Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. CTR Nirmal Kumar and Others].
Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed the application, having reserved orders on October 1. The detailed order is awaited.
The DMK’s case
Besides the two Ministers, the DMK sought leave to sue the IT wing of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), Google LLC (which runs YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc (which runs Instagram) and X Corp.
According to the party, Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar accused the DMK on September 21 of inaction in the POCSO case, and Minister Aadhav Arjuna, at a press meet the same day, said the DMK had, during its tenure, run a compromised police force that applied different laws to protect favoured industrialists, party members and what he called the then ruling family. The DMK alleged that the TVK’s IT wing publicised, reposted and circulated these statements.
The party contended that the two Ministers, holding responsible public offices, made the statements solely to defame it, knowing them to be false, and went ahead with misleading imputations despite having enough opportunity to ascertain the facts.
The Ministers’ objection to the Aadhav Arjuna defamation plea
The Ministers opposed the grant of leave, arguing that the notice required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before a suit is filed against a public officer had not been given. Section 80 requires two months’ prior written notice before a suit against the Central or State Government, or a public officer for acts done in official capacity, unless the court permits otherwise in a case of urgent relief.
Advocate General Vijay Narayanan argued that the only question at this stage was whether leave could be granted when the plaint itself was barred for want of the mandatory notice. He submitted that the Ministers had been made parties in their capacity as public officers, pointing out that the plaint itself said the Ministers, holding public office, should not have made such statements. No suit could therefore be instituted without the Section 80 notice, he argued.
Senior Advocate J. Ravindran, for the DMK, replied that no such notice was needed, as the party was challenging defamatory statements made by the Ministers and not anything done in their official capacity.
The Court has only granted leave to file the suit. Whether the statements are defamatory is yet to be tried, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the DMK’s claims or the Ministers’ defence.
Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. CTR Nirmal Kumar and Others [A No. 4180 of 2026 in CS (Filing No.) 168724 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate J. Ravindran for the DMK; Advocate General Vijay Narayanan, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, and Advocates Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, T. Mahendhran, Mohan Parthasarathy and K. Nishvakk for the respondents