In a chilling act of violence that stunned Tenkasi on 16 April 2025, a man was brutally beheaded in front of his wife by an unidentified gang, who then escaped with the severed head and placed it near a temple approximately eight kilometers from the crime scene.
The victim was identified as 35-year-old K. Kuthalingam from Kasimajorpuram, who had been residing with his wife in Keezhapuliyoor. According to police reports, the couple had gone to a public distribution system (PDS) shop in their village on 16 April evening when they were ambushed by a gang of four. Armed with sickles, the assailants attacked Kuthalingam. Despite his wife’s desperate attempts to intervene, the gang managed to decapitate him and fled with his head.
The horrified woman immediately informed the Tenkasi police, who registered a case of murder against the unknown attackers. Soon after, authorities were alerted that a severed head had been discovered near a temple in Kasimajorpuram. Police quickly reached the scene and transported both the body and the head to the Tenkasi Government Hospital for postmortem examination.
Initial police findings suggest the murder might have been an act of vengeance. Kuthalingam was reportedly one of the accused in the murder of a young man near the same temple in November 2023. Investigations are ongoing to determine the motive and to identify and apprehend those responsible.
Tamil Nadu Forest Minister K. Ponmudy has found himself embroiled in controversy after making derogatory remarks about Shaivism and Vaishnavism, along with indecent and offensive comments about women during a public event organized by the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam. In response, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Madras High Court, seeking his removal from the state cabinet. The PIL, submitted by advocate B Jagannath, claims that Ponmudy’s statements are a violation of the responsibilities entrusted to a public servant under the Constitution and calls for his immediate dismissal from ministerial duties.
The controversy erupted after Ponmudy, while speaking at an event organized by the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, recounted a vulgar anecdote that linked sacred Hindu religious symbols to sexual positions. The minister referenced a crude joke historically shared in Dravidian movement circles, which equated the forehead markings of Shaivites and Vaishnavites to different sexual acts. The remarks, which quickly went viral, drew widespread condemnation from various political and religious groups.
He said, “A man goes to the home of a sex worker. She asked him if he was a Shaivaite or a Vaishnavite. He did not understand. If she had asked for ₹5 or ₹10, it would have been okay. He pondered why she asked if he was a Shaivaite or Vaishnavite coming to a sex worker’s home. When he asked, he did not understand her question. She said if you are a Shaivaite, you wear holy ash this way, and if you are Vaishnavaite, you wear it this way. He did not understand. He asked her what she meant. She said if you are Shaivaite, it means intercourse in a lying position, and if it is Vaishnavaite, intercourse in a standing position.” This went viral and received criticism from all quarters.
This is DMK’s standard of political discourse in Tamil Nadu. Thiru Ponmudi was once the Higher Education Minister of Tamil Nadu & now Minister for Forests and Khadi, and the youth of Tamil Nadu are expected to tolerate this filth? Not just this Minister, the entire DMK ecosystem… pic.twitter.com/ENMq47hiPf
B Jagannath, in his PIL, criticized the lack of police response despite multiple complaints being filed, including one by BJP leaders with the Chennai Police Commissioner. He emphasized that Ponmudy, as an elected official, is constitutionally bound to respect and protect the sentiments of all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.
Facing intense backlash, Ponmudy issued a public apology on 12 April 2025, acknowledging the inappropriateness of his comments. “I sincerely apologize for the words I used. It was a lapse in judgment. I regret having caused offense and embarrassment to many,” he said in a statement, expressing remorse for the hurt his remarks caused.
In response to the uproar, the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) removed Ponmudy from his position as the party’s Deputy General Secretary. However, he continues to serve as the Forest Minister, a decision that has drawn criticism from opposition parties and civil society alike.
DMK MP Kanimozhi, sister of Chief Minister and party leader M.K. Stalin, condemned Ponmudy’s comments, labeling them “unacceptable.” AIADMK leader Sellur Raju also criticized the minister, accusing him of frequently making disparaging remarks about women and marginalized communities.
BJP spokesperson C.R. Kesavan demanded Ponmudy’s immediate dismissal from the cabinet, stating that his statements have stripped him of any moral right to hold public office.
The PIL is expected to be heard by the Madras High Court on 24 April 2025, as pressure mounts on the state government to take firmer action.
On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court voiced concern over the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf boards during a hearing on the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Petitioners challenging the amendment argued that such provisions interfere with the Muslim community’s right to independently oversee and manage its religious and charitable institutions.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna posed a pointed question to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, asking, “Are you now suggesting that Muslims should also be appointed to Hindu endowment boards? Please state that clearly.” His comment highlighted the perceived inconsistency in allowing cross-religious representation in religious bodies.
The bench raised the issue of whether non-Muslims should be involved in Waqf-related decision-making, especially since the reverse scenario does not occur in Hindu religious institutions. The Chief Justice noted that under the current framework, most Waqf board members are Muslim—eight out of ten—leaving minimal representation from other communities. He questioned why similar inclusivity wasn’t considered for Hindu religious boards.
The Chief Justice asked, “Tushar Mehta, are you suggesting that members of minority communities, including Muslims, will now be permitted to serve on the Boards or Councils of Hindu religious or endowment bodies? If so, please state that clearly and openly.”
When the Solicitor General implied that, by the same reasoning, the judges themselves should not hear the case, the court reacted strongly. Chief Justice Khanna responded sharply, stating, “When we sit on this bench, we leave our religion at the door. We serve all equally. Comparing judges to board members is not appropriate.”
Justice KV Viswanathan also weighed in, pointing out that understanding the internal workings of mosques—such as access routes—may require familiarity with the space, reinforcing the need for community-specific representation. Mehta countered that such logistical matters could be handled by the Charity Commissioner.
The three-judge panel, comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice Viswanathan, is set to resume the hearing on Thursday.
Background
The Supreme Court is currently examining a set of petitions that challenge the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. A key concern is the introduction of non-Muslim members to Waqf boards, which critics argue undermines the right of the Muslim community to manage its religious properties and institutions.
Another contentious issue is the legal treatment of historic mosques that were established through long-standing community use rather than formal documentation like sale deeds. The Court highlighted the difficulty in reversing Waqf status for such centuries-old properties.
As a temporary measure, the Court has ruled that any property recognized as Waqf by a court cannot be removed from that designation while the case is ongoing. It also suspended the provision that barred properties under investigation by the District Collector from being considered Waqf during that time. The Court emphasized that all appointed Waqf board members must be Muslim, apart from those holding positions ex officio.
The “triple flop” Dravidianist director Pa Ranjith, known for his ideologically-driven cinema, has once again stirred controversy this time at the Verchol Dalit Literary Festival—by expressing apparent resentment toward the rising success of Mari Selvaraj. In a noticeably bitter tone, Ranjith revisited his association with director Mari Selvaraj, claiming that he was the one who introduced Selvaraj through the critically acclaimed film Pariyerum Perumal. He lamented that, despite being the producer of the film, he has not been duly recognized for its success—an unusual complaint, as industry norms typically celebrate the director as the creative force behind a film’s success or failure.
Ranjith appeared to express envy over Mari Selvaraj’s rising acclaim and attempted to reclaim part of that credit by emphasizing his role in launching Selvaraj’s career. However, Mari Selvaraj has carved his own path through impactful, socially resonant films that have earned both public and critical praise, without relying on ideological narratives as heavily as Ranjith.
Rather than self-reflection, Ranjith used the platform to rationalize his string of underwhelming releases, attributing lack of recognition to others instead of acknowledging potential flaws in storytelling and audience disconnect. He went further to suggest that he has been the sole torchbearer of Dalit-focused cinema and workplace inclusion, seemingly demanding acknowledgment for championing such causes.
Why Kaala Was A Flop – A Pa Ranjith Narrative
Pa Ranjith, in an attempt to explain the commercial failure of his film Kaala, offered a string of justifications during his speech. He said, “What happened during the time of Kaala was that, immediately after Rajinikanth announced his entry into politics, everyone began to write that he was using me. Particularly, what Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi’s Ravi Kumar did then was…,” Ranjith paused mid-sentence, seemingly avoiding direct criticism, and continued, “Some people started writing that I was being motivated and funded by the RSS, that I was portraying Rajinikanth as an Ambedkarite and taking him to the slums. I didn’t know what to make of all this. Kaala is a film that openly opposed RSS ideology and stands till today. I presented that straight away. The conflict is black and white. In the climax, I had said that three colours should unify. I was confused and don’t know what more I was expected to take. I’m confused as to why the film was criticized so much.”
He went on to say that the entire Tamil community turned against Kaala after comments made by Rajinikanth about the Thoothukudi firing incident, claiming that those remarks triggered widespread negative campaigning against the film. Then he lamented that, “No one showed mercy that I was the one who directed it. ‘Ranjith was sold out’. That’s all that mattered. Many others have worked with Superstar Rajinikanth, but they were never sold-out directors, but I was the only one who was.”
Envy Towards Mari Selvaraj? Pa Ranjith’s Attempt To Overshadow His Protégé’s Success
In a later part of his speech, Pa Ranjith appeared to repeatedly downplay Mari Selvaraj’s success, claiming that Pariyerum Perumal—the film that launched Mari’s career—only came to be because of his backing. He seemed intent on reminding the audience that he produced the film and, in doing so, tried to shift the spotlight back onto himself.
Speaking at the event, Ranjith said, “We have made Pariyerum Perumal and released it—it became a huge hit. But what happened at that time was… Pariyerum Perumal was a movie that I invested my own money in. I’m its producer. While releasing the movie, I had previously given some money to my wife for savings. I got that from her and released the movie. But after watching the movie, I saw an article, I think it was Vikatan, they had not even mentioned that it was produced by Neelam Production, but had written that Pariyerum Perumal was awesome. A director wrote ‘Director Ram’s upbringing led to this film being made.’ I’m asking, what is wrong with you praising me? What is the problem with writing ‘Neelam Production’? When a good movie comes out, who is it being produced by?”
Ranjith went on to say that he had no clear expectations about whether the film would succeed. He admitted that only two scenes truly resonated with him. One was the moment where the character says, “I’m going to become a doctor.” After watching that scene, Ranjith told the team, “That alone is enough for me.” The other was the professor’s line, “If you back down in fear, will they spare you?”—a moment that ultimately convinced him to go ahead and release the film.
He concluded by subtly expressing resentment that, “Even then, everyone seemed to have an issue acknowledging that it was a Ranjith production. But fine, let it be. But a Mari Selvaraj rose from that, didn’t he? And now he’s reached great heights, hasn’t he?”
Ranjith Attempt to Claim Sole Ownership Over Dalit Representation Simply To Undermine Mari Selvaraj
Perhaps the most disappointing moment came when flop director Pa Ranjith appeared to craft a narrative positioning himself as the only true advocate for Dalit representation in cinema—while subtly discrediting director Mari Selvaraj’s contributions. In a surprising and divisive remark, Ranjith suggested indirectly a notion that Mari Selvaraj was not committed to offering opportunities or showing preferential support to Dalits in his film projects. He implied that, unlike himself, Mari was reluctant to prioritize the upliftment of marginalized communities in his work.
Ranjith said, “Mari Selvaraj came and asked me how many people have come to work in your production, how many have come to make films, and how many of them are non-Dalits. How many people are working with your movement, and when there are this many non-Dalits, how are you going to respond to the accusations against you? I said I don’t care about that. Yes, I am a Dalit. I live for Dalits. I will give a chance only to Dalits. I don’t care and I don’t understand. I know who I am. Why should I come to you and give a certification in written to trust me? I don’t need it.”
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
The All India Muslim Jamaat, a Sunni organization based in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, has issued a religious decree (fatwa) against Tamil actor-turned-politician and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam leader Vijay. The fatwa was prompted by allegations that Vijay invited drunkards and gamblers to an Iftar gathering, which the Jamaat declared as both sinful and unlawful in Islam. The group also advised the Muslim community in Tamil Nadu to refrain from including such individuals in religious functions or trusting them in matters of faith.
Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi, who serves as the National President of the All India Muslim Jamaat and Chief Mufti at Chashme Darul Ifta, issued the fatwa in response to a specific query. In it, he labeled Vijay as someone with a track record of actions contrary to Islamic principles, describing him as “anti-Muslim” based on his past behavior and public statements.
The fatwa specifically criticizes Vijay for what it describes as an attempt to gain political favor by exploiting Muslim sentiments. Maulana Razvi referenced the actor’s film The Beast, accusing it of portraying Muslims negatively by linking them to terrorism and portraying them as villains. According to Razvi, these depictions show Vijay’s past insensitivity towards the Muslim community.
Maulana Razvi Bareilvi said, “There’s prominent personality from TamilNadu named Vijay Thalapathy. He has formed a political party and maintained cordial relations with Muslims. However, he has portrayed Muslims in a negative way as those who spread terrorism in his films. Gamblers and liquor consumers were invited to his Iftar party. Due to all this, Sunni Muslims of Tamil Nadu are angry with him. They asked for a fatwa. So, in my answer, I have issued a fatwa mentioning that Muslims should not stand with Vijay.”
Further, he condemned the actor for allegedly disrespecting the holy month of Ramadan by inviting people who were not observing the fast or Islamic practices to an Iftar event. Razvi mentioned that Sunni Muslims in Tamil Nadu had even lodged a police complaint regarding the incident.
ऑल इंडिया मुस्लिम जमात के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष और दारुल इफ्ता के चीफ मुफ्ती मौलाना शहाबुद्दीन रजवी बरेलवी ने @TVKVijayHQ के अध्यक्ष @actorvijay के बारे मे पूछे गये एक सवाल के जवाब में फतवा जारी किया. pic.twitter.com/ucQIskPp55
— Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi Bareilvi (@Shahabuddinbrly) April 16, 2025
He concluded by calling on Muslims to avoid supporting Vijay politically or socially, urging them to neither attend his events nor include him in religious functions.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
A National Commission for Women (NCW) delegation will visit violence-affected areas in West Bengal and meet the victims. The delegation will arrive in Kolkata on Thursday evening and proceed to Malda on April 18 and Murshidabad on April 19.
The NCW enquiry committee will probe the Murshidabad violence and NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar will personally visit violence-hit areas and meet the victims.
Several areas in the district witnessed violent protests over the newly-promulgated Waqf (Amendment) Act last week. The total number of arrests in connection with the violence in pockets of Murshidabad district of West Bengal has crossed 200 till now, a senior official of the state police said.
The West Bengal Police on Wednesday announced the constitution of a nine-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violence and riot-like situation in the minority-dominated Murshidabad district throughout almost the entire last week over protests against the Waqf Amendment Act becoming violent.
The NCW on Wednesday, announced the formation of an enquiry committee to investigate the violence. The NCW stated that the decision to form its probe committee was taken after the commission took suo motu cognizance of reports of several women enduring molestation during the communal unrest in the Mandirpara area of Dhulian, Murshidabad district.
“The violence has led to the exodus of hundreds of women, many of whom were forced to cross the Bhagirathi River in search of safety, seeking refuge in the nearby district of Malda. These women have been torn from their homes, living in fear and uncertainty, facing unimaginable trauma and loss,” the NCW statement read.
“The committee will also include Dr. Archana Majumdar, Member of the NCW, and Dr. Shivani Dey, Deputy Secretary of the NCW, to support the enquiry and ensure a thorough investigation,” the NCW statement read.
Meanwhile, the nine-member SIT of the state police will be headed by an officer of the rank of additional superintendent of police, who will be assisted by two officers in the ranks of deputy superintendents of police and six inspector-ranking officers.
The SIT will have representations from various departments of state police namely Intelligence Branch, Counter Insurgency Force, Criminal Investigation Department, and Cyber Crime Division.
The two announcements came on a day when a petition has already been filed at Calcutta High Court by some victim families of Murshidabad seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the violence. The hearing on the matter will be held on Thursday.
–IANS
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
President Donald Trump’s administration has become embroiled in a standoff with the judiciary over its program to send to El Salvador illegal migrants who are allegedly members of criminal gangs now declared as foreign terrorist organisations.
A federal judge on Wednesday threatened criminal contempt proceedings against the administration for not following his order to return to the US a plane that was ferrying Venezuelan migrants to a notorious high-security detention centre in El Salvador.
Another federal judge had on Tuesday told the Justice Department that she was going to move against it for failing to comply with orders to bring back a Salvadoran migrant whom the government admitted had been erroneously deported to El Salvador.
She also held out the possibility of contempt proceedings against officials. The threats by the two judges in separate cases to rein in the administration’s deportation actions test the Constitution’s separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.
Trump and his officials have brushed off the judiciary’s threats. Judge James Boasberg said that there was probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for failing to return the migrants en route to El Salvador to give them a chance to challenge their deportation in a US court.
The Justice Department maintains that once the planes were in flight they were out of the court’s jurisdiction and could not be returned. “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it”, Boasberg said.
The administration, which invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport them, has refused to provide him with details about the migrants, asserting that it would compromise state secrets.
The administration asserted that 238 Venezuelans were members of the dangerous criminal gang Tren de Aragua involved in crimes in the US and abroad and since it has been declared a foreign terrorist organisation it could act against them under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law.
Boasberg said that the government would not have to bring them back, but only give them a chance to challenge their deportation in court.
Failing that, he would require officials to testify under oath to identify those who disregarded his order and prosecute whoever was responsible, he said. When a court cites someone for criminal contempt, the Justice Department prosecutes them.
If it refused to prosecute, Boasberg indicated he would appoint an outside lawyer as the prosecutor. The Trump administration said it would challenge Boasberg, taking it to the Supreme Court where it had earlier notched a partial victory against him in another matter.
On appeal, the Supreme Court struck down a temporary order by Boasberg to stop deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, but upheld the rights of those facing deportation under the law to challenge it in court.
In the other case, the Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported by mistake although a judge had ordered that he should not be sent to El Salvador where he may face violence. Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to bring him back.
On an appeal, the Supreme Court partially sided with the judge, ordering the government to only “facilitate” his return, rather than actually bring him back as Xinis ordered. On Monday, at a White House meeting with Trump, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele said he would not release Garcia from the dreaded Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) prison for hardened criminals. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the matter was in the hands of Bukele and Garcia was “not coming back” and it was the “end of story”.
Taking a narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court’s dictum to “facilitate” Garcia’s return, Bondi said if El Salvador released him the US would provide a plane to bring him back.
The government says that though the deportation was a mistake, Garcia belonged to MS-13, a notorious gang with roots in El Salvador. Xinis had asked the Justice Department to provide regular updates on what it was doing to facilitate his return, and information on his case. Frustrated by the government’s refusal to fully respond, she said, “There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding”.
She ordered four government officials to sit for a deposition next week with Garcia’s lawyers. The Administration’s lawyer Dave Ensign indicated that the government may appeal her ruling. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may have the final say on contempt proceedings, and were they to come about it could set the scene for a momentous confrontation between the Trump administration and the judiciary.
Trump has called Boasberg a “radical left lunatic” and a group of Republican members of the House of Representatives have introduced a resolution to impeach him.
–IANS
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
A video showing drinking water being transported in a garbage truck to a DMK-organised Neer Mor (buttermilk) stall in Chamalapuram, near Palladam, has triggered widespread criticism on social media and among local residents. The incident, which involved the use of a municipal sanitation vehicle, raised serious concerns about hygiene and misuse of public resources.
The buttermilk stall was reportedly opened over 40 days ago as part of birthday celebrations for Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. It was overseen by Chamalapuram Town Panchayat Chairman and DMK functionary Vinayaka Palaniswami.
In the video, which has since gone viral, a sanitation worker was seen drawing water from a public tap and loading it into a garbage truck before transporting it to the Neer Mor pandal. When questioned, the worker claimed he was acting on instructions from local officials.
The incident sparked strong condemnation from social activists and local residents, who expressed concern over the potential health risks. They alleged that the buttermilk distributed at the stall was mainly consumed by daily wage workers, children, and the elderly, and that using unfiltered water carried in a waste collection vehicle posed a risk of infection. The activists also criticised the use of a government vehicle for what they described as a political party’s activity.
Efforts to reach Chairman Palaniswami for clarification reportedly failed, as his phone was found to be unreachable.
Chamalapuram Town Panchayat Executive Officer Sivakumar later acknowledged the incident and said he became aware of it only after the video surfaced. He confirmed that a garbage truck was used and stated that a temporary sanitation worker had transported the water without his knowledge. He added that disciplinary action would be taken against the worker and that an inspection would be conducted at the site to assess whether unsanitary water had been used.
However, local activists questioned this explanation and alleged that the worker was being made a scapegoat to protect senior officials. They argued that such an action could not have been carried out without authorisation from higher authorities within the town panchayat.
A metaphor used by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P. K. Sekar Babu during a legislative discussion has sparked sharp reactions from the opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
Speaking during the Finance Committee meeting on budget allocations for the Department of Social Welfare and Differently Abled Persons, Sekar Babu likened Sanatana Dharma to the peel of a banana.
“The peel is Sanatanam; the fruit inside is the Lord,” he said. “Just as we discard the peel to eat the fruit, one must go beyond Sanatanam to truly realize God.”
His analogy immediately drew criticism from AIADMK MLA K.P. Munusamy, who dismissed the minister’s parable as flawed.
“There is a vast difference between Sanatanam and a banana peel,” Munusamy countered. “If Sanatana and God are truly one and the same, there would be no need for such heated debates or legal battles.”
The debate grew more animated when DMK MLA Musiri Thiyagarajan added a political dimension to the discussion, referencing past controversies, “Udhayanidi is the 10-headed Ravana who came to destroy Sanatanam,” he said, alluding to the ‘eradicate Sanatana Dharma’ remarks made by the DMK scion in September 2023 which drew huge backlash from across the country.
In a disturbing turn of events, Baladurai (73), a resident of Chennai, has alleged that a group of men claiming to be supporters of DMK MLA Prabhakar Raja threatened to kill him over a land dispute in Vadapalani.
According to a complaint filed by Baladurai, he had taken a piece of land on lease in Vadapalani. A group of around 30 individuals, allegedly associated with the ruling DMK party, arrived at the location with a JCB machine. The group reportedly demolished the perimeter wall and shutter of the leased property.
A video recorded by Baladurai’s son captures the aftermath of the incident. In the footage, the son claims that the men not only caused destruction but also issued death threats.“They threatened to kill us, saying they belong to the ruling party,”he said.
திமுக எம்எல்ஏ கட்டுப்பஞ்சாய்த்தா ?
என்னோட கேண்டீனை JCB வெச்சு அடிச்சு ஒடச்சிட்டாங்க.. உள்ள இருந்த பொருட்கள் எல்லாத்தையும் ரோட்ல தூக்கி வீசிட்டாங்க.. MLA பிரபாகர் ராஜா ஆதரவாளர்கள் மீது காவல் நிலையத்தில் புகார்
The family is demanding immediate action against the attackers and protection from further intimidation. Baladurai has appealed to the authorities to take cognizance of the involvement of political supporters in land grabbing and intimidation tactics.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, there has beenno official response yet from MLA Prabhakar Raja or the DMK.
