YouTuber Maridhas was recently served a police notice and had an FIR registered against him at the Tallakulam Police Station in Madurai, days after he published videos exposing an alleged ₹200 crore corruption scandal in the Madurai Corporation, naming DMK MP and former Finance Minister PTR Palanivel Thiagarajan (PTR) and a woman identified as Archana Devi, reportedly referred to as “Achchu” by PT, as key figures in the alleged scam.
The complaint was filed by Archana Devi herself at the Tallakulam Police Station in Madurai. A Sub-Inspector subsequently visited Maridhas’s office in Chennai and served him with a notice directing him to appear before police authorities informing him that a case had been registered.
The FIR invokes three sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
- Section 77 – Voyeurism (photographing a woman without her knowledge in a private space such as a bathroom or restroom)
- Section 78 – Stalking (following, trailing, or repeatedly contacting a person against their will)
- Section 79 – Insulting the modesty of a woman through obscene gestures, winking, or whistling
Maridhas has publicly and categorically contested all three charges, calling them not only false but legally inapplicable to anything he has done.
Maridhas’s Rebuttal: Section by Section
On each count, Maridhas has offered a pointed legal challenge. On Section 77 (Voyeurism), he flatly denies ever photographing Archana Devi in any private context – pointing out that the section is specifically designed for cases where someone is photographed without their knowledge inside a bathroom or restroom, a situation that bears no resemblance to anything he has done.
On Section 78 (Stalking), he notes that he never followed, trailed, or attempted to contact Archana Devi at any point. The professional details referenced in his videos, he argues, were drawn entirely from her own LinkedIn profile – a public-facing page she chose to create and chose not to set to private making the invocation of a stalking provision against the use of openly accessible public information legally absurd.
On Section 79 (Outraging Modesty), Maridhas argues the charge is perhaps the most inapplicable of the three. The section covers physical acts such as obscene gestures, suggestive signals, whistling and has no plausible connection to video commentary published on a YouTube channel. He challenges the police to explain, if the matter goes to court, on precisely what evidentiary basis any of the three sections were included in the FIR at all.
The Underlying Allegation: ₹200 Crore Madurai Corporation Scam
The FIR comes directly in response to Maridhas’s investigative video on the alleged ₹200 crore corruption scandal within the Madurai Corporation. His specific allegations are:
Archana Devi was the operational mastermind of the corruption – the person who actually ran the scheme on the ground
PTR Palanivel Thiagarajan facilitated Archana Devi’s entry into the Madurai Corporation setup and exercised control over her functioning
Archana Devi worked simultaneously as an unpaid “volunteer” assistant to the Mayor of Madurai and as a full-time employee at PTR’s own office – a dual arrangement Maridhas calls impossible and incriminating
The Mayor of Madurai was used as a scapegoat while the real beneficiaries, both PTR and Archana Devi, operated behind the scenes
One close associate of PTR has reportedly already fled the country, and another along with their entire family is currently in jail in connection with a land-grabbing case
Maridhas has stated that simply interrogating Archana Devi would uncover at least half the truth about the scam and that PTR’s panicked response to his video, rushing Archana Devi to file a complaint the very next day, is itself the clearest proof of guilt.
The Speed of the FIR: A Double Standard?
Maridhas has drawn sharp attention to the contrast in police response times. It is noteworthy that when parents of the Thoothukudi girl who was found raped and murdered went to file a missing complaint, the police spend three days in bureaucratic formalities. Yet when it concerned a woman deemed essential to PTR Palanivel Thiagarajan, they sprang into action with breakneck speed.
Maridhas described the FIR as a “fresh-off-the-press” case, registered immediately after his video was posted, and characterised it as an attempt by PTR to “hide behind that woman” rather than confront the corruption allegations directly.
The Public Challenge
Maridhas has issued a direct public challenge to PTR Palanivel Thiagarajan: set up an open-air public debate on the streets of Madurai, on the very thoroughfare where the temple chariots roll and answer the following questions on record:
- How did Archana Devi come to be appointed as an assistant to the Mayor of Madurai?
- How did she simultaneously hold a full-time position at PTR’s own office?
- How did PTR and Archana Devi exercise control over the Mayor?
- Did PTR personally benefit from the ₹200 crore misappropriation?
- Who are the associates who fled the country and who are now in jail and what is their connection to PTR?
Maridhas cited that Thiagarajan wanted to “find a way to expose Maridhas and humiliate him publicly” and argued that the FIR is a direct execution of that stated agenda, weaponising the police to silence a journalist rather than address the corruption allegations.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
