Home News “I Am Not Liable For Every Post”: MK Stalin Tells Madras High...

“I Am Not Liable For Every Post”: MK Stalin Tells Madras High Court In Aadhav Arjuna Defamation Case

“I Am Not Liable For Every Post”: MK Stalin Tells Madras High Court In Aadhav Arjuna Defamation Case

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has told the Madras High Court that merely holding the post of party president does not make him legally responsible for every social-media post published by the various wings or functionaries of the party, as reported in Bar and Bench.

Stalin made the submission in a counter-affidavit opposing applications seeking interim relief in a ₹1 crore defamation suit filed by Tamil Nadu Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Aadhav Arjuna.

The suit, titled Aadhav Arjuna Vs Stalin, relates to a post published by the DMK IT Wing which linked Arjuna to a person accused in a ₹258 crore drug trafficking case.

“The mere fact that I am the President of the DMK does not render me liable for every post published through the social media accounts of the various wings/functionaries of the party,” Stalin has contended.

Stalin said that although he exercises administrative control over office bearers of the party’s various wings, such control cannot be treated as creating legal liability for their individual acts.

He specifically denied instructing or approving any post that linked Arjuna or his family to a person named John Britto or to the drug trafficking case.

The suit is pending before Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi. The Madras High Court had earlier issued notice to Stalin and the DMK IT Wing in connection with Arjuna’s plea.

The matter had earlier been adjourned till September 22 after Stalin sought time to file his counter-affidavit. In his response, Stalin has sought dismissal of the interim applications filed by Arjuna, along with exemplary costs.

Dispute Over DMK IT Wing Post

The dispute stems from a post published by the DMK IT Wing concerning John Britto, who was described as being involved in a narcotics case.

The post also described Britto as a relative of Arjuna.

Arjuna has disputed the claim and maintained that the person accused in the drug trafficking case, John Britto, is not his relative.

He alleged that the DMK had deliberately conflated the accused with his relative because they shared similar names.

The post linking Arjuna and Britto was subsequently deleted.

Following this, Arjuna approached the Madras High Court against Stalin and the DMK IT Wing, seeking ₹1 crore in damages, an apology and injunctive relief.

In his counter-affidavit, Stalin referred to Arjuna’s own acknowledgment that he has a relative named John Britto.

Stalin said that this relative had approached the Greater Chennai Police claiming that he was not the person referred to in a press release issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Stalin Cites Criminal Cases, Earlier Remarks

Stalin also relied on criminal cases allegedly involving Arjuna and some of his family members.

He argued that Arjuna had approached the Court without disclosing material facts.

The DMK president further referred to a speech delivered by Arjuna in March 2026, in which Arjuna allegedly referred to Stalin as a “foolish Chief Minister” twice.

Stalin argued that a person who had himself used such language against a political opponent could not claim the extent of reputational injury asserted in the defamation proceedings.

Says Interim Reliefs Are Premature

Stalin further contended that Arjuna’s interim prayers seeking an apology, removal of the disputed content and surrender of electronic records were premature.

On the prayer seeking removal of the disputed social-media post, Stalin pointed out that the post had already been deleted and was no longer available online.

He therefore argued that the application seeking its removal had become infructuous.

Stalin also invoked the right to freedom of speech, contending that the freedom of speech includes the right to criticise public figures.

He argued that restraining an opposition party from criticising a sitting minister could have a chilling effect on political speech.

Stalin is represented by Advocate Richard Wilson.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsAppTelegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.