A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices N. Sathish Kumar and G.K. Muthukumar, has issued an interim order restraining the court’s Registry from numbering a ₹1 crore defamation suit initiated by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The suit, brought forward by the party's general secretary, Duraimurugan, targets Minister for Energy Resources and Law C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar, Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna, and the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) IT wing.
The court's intervention follows two appeals filed by Mr. Kumar and the TVK IT wing, challenging a previous order by Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, who had granted permission on October 5, 2026, for the DMK to institute the proceedings. During the hearing, senior counsel J. Ravindran, representing the DMK, agreed to refrain from taking steps to number the suit until the next hearing date. Consequently, the Bench recorded this statement and directed the Registry to list the matter for further proceedings on October 13, 2026.
The legal dispute stems from allegations made by the TVK IT wing and the two Ministers, who reportedly accused the DMK of shielding R. Veeramani, an individual accused in a child sexual abuse case, during the party's previous term in government. Because some of the entities mentioned in the suit, including X Corp, Meta Platforms, and YouTube LLC, are located outside the court's jurisdiction, the DMK had initially sought the court's leave to file the action.
The appellants have raised significant questions regarding the suit's maintainability. The Advocate General, representing the Law Minister, argued that the action was filed against public officials in their official capacity without the mandatory prior notice required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, counsel for the TVK IT wing contended that a political party cannot be considered a juristic person capable of maintaining a defamation suit. The court has directed all relevant papers to be served to the parties involved ahead of Tuesday's hearing.
Comments