Madras High Court Issues Notice to M K Stalin on Aadhav Arjuna's Defamation Plea

The Madras High Court on Friday issued a notice to former DMK president M K Stalin and the party's Information Technology wing in connection with a civil suit filed by Tamil Nadu PWD Minister Aadhav Arjuna seeking Rs 1 crore in damages for alleged defamation.

Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi ordered the notices and scheduled the next hearing of the application for September 15. Alongside the financial compensation, the suit seeks an injunction restraining Stalin and the DMK IT wing from publishing similar allegedly false and defamatory statements against Arjuna.

In his application, the TVK leader submitted that the suit was filed in response to a post published on June 8, 2026, through the official social media handle of the DMK Information Technology Wing, @DMKITwing, on the platform X. Arjuna stated that the publication contained false, malicious, and defamatory imputations that caused severe injury to his reputation, dignity, credibility, and public standing.

Arjuna contended that the social media post was not an isolated or unauthorised act by an individual functionary. Instead, he argued that it was released pursuant to the plan, directions, instructions, and approval of Stalin, who exercises control, supervision, and overarching authority over the affairs of the DMK, including its IT wing. Consequently, Arjuna submitted that Stalin remains accountable for the publication and dissemination, while the IT wing is directly responsible as the official manager and operator of the account.

The petition further stated that the allegations were wholly fabricated and lacked any factual foundation. Arjuna maintained that an individual referred to in Enforcement Directorate proceedings was not a relative, let alone a close relative, and that the claims were published without verification or supporting material.

Arjuna also noted that a formal complaint had been lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, by the individual concerned, clarifying that he was not the person referenced in the ED proceedings. Arjuna submitted that presenting the individual as his relative in spite of the complaint demonstrated a deliberate and calculated intention to defame him.