Adithya TV, part of the Sun TV Network, has issued a hollow and superficial apology over a controversial promotional video that trivialised the suffering of freedom fighter V.O. Chidambaram Pillai (V.O.C.), nearly three weeks after the promo triggered widespread outrage. However, the apology seems inadequate, with the channel also disabling the comments section across its Facebook, X, YouTube and Instagram platforms.
Apology pic.twitter.com/Q8i9k9qUSQ
— Adithya TV (@AdithyaTV) August 11, 2026
The controversy began with a 32-second promotional clip for the proposed comedy game show Digital Diary, aired on 23 July 2026, 2026. The promo featured participants being asked why V.O.C. was given the title “Chekkizhutha Chemmal”, a reference to the brutal punishment he endured in British custody, when he was forced to pull an oil press like a bullock.
ஆதித்யா சேனலில் கேவலம் டிஆர்பி க்காக வ.உ.சி ஐயா அவர்களை இழிவுபடுத்தி இருக்கிறார்கள்!
தமிழ்நாட்டில் கருணாநிதியும், ஈ.வெ.ரா வையும் தாண்டி சான்றோர்கள் இல்லைங்கிறது தான் இவங்க திராவிஷ மாடல் சூழ்ச்சியே!
வ.உ.சி ஐயாவை யாருனு தெரியாம தமிழ்நாட்ல அடுத்த தலைமுறை இருக்கு…அதையும்… pic.twitter.com/MhBYxVeja6
— Sumathi Megavarnam Pillai ( மோடியின் குடும்பம்) (@Sumamega) July 26, 2026
Instead of identifying the historical episode, one participant described V.O.C. as a “boatman” who pulled a boat between shores. Another participant compared the incident to Duryodhana pulling Draupadi’s saree in the Mahabharata, with the exchange presented as comedy and accompanied by laughter.
The promo sparked criticism from members of V.O.C.’s family, historians, public figures and social media users. The channel turned the suffering of a freedom fighter into entertainment.
The matter subsequently reached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. On 3 August 2026, Justice L. Victoria Gowri disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by advocate and social activist R. Kanagavel Pandian, who had sought directions for the registration of an FIR against Adithya TV and senior police officials.
While the court declined to order registration of an FIR, it made it clear that a broadcaster could not simply evade editorial responsibility by pointing to an external producer. The court also imposed restorative measures, including an on-air apology, an annual State-level elocution competition for students, distribution of 1,000 copies each of three books on V.O.C., and an internal editorial-review protocol.
Adithya TV had told the court that the promo was removed after V.O.C.’s family members contacted the channel. According to its submission, the promo was removed from television by 10 a.m. on July 25, from Instagram by 11 a.m. the same day, and from YouTube by 3.20 p.m. on July 26. The channel also said that the full episode was cancelled and was never telecast.
Apology Comes Nearly Three Weeks Later
On 11 August 2026. Adithya TV finally issued a public apology.
In the statement, the four participants featured in the promo said their comments about V.O.C. were “inappropriate”, insensitive to historical sentiments and inconsistent with the respect due to his sacrifices as a freedom fighter. They apologised for the remarks.
Adithya TV separately acknowledged that the comments in the promotional video were inappropriate and said they failed to respect historical sentiments and the honour due to V.O.C. and his sacrifices.
The channel stated that the promo had been withdrawn and that the programme itself was never broadcast. It further said that neither the promo nor the programme would be broadcast, uploaded or reused on any platform in the future.
However, the apology raises questions about accountability.
The channel’s response came only after the controversy had escalated into legal proceedings and the High Court had issued restorative directions. More significantly, rather than opening the matter up for public scrutiny, Adithya TV has disabled comments across its Facebook, X, YouTube and Instagram platforms.
That leaves the apology looking less like an open acknowledgement of public criticism and more like a controlled damage-control exercise.
For a broadcaster that chose to turn a painful episode in the life of one of Tamil Nadu’s most respected freedom fighters into a comedy promo, simply withdrawing the video and issuing a carefully worded apology does little to address the editorial failure that allowed the material to be produced and aired in the first place.
V.O.C. was not merely a historical personality associated with shipping or a trivia question. He was imprisoned by the British, subjected to brutal treatment and forced to perform hard labour, including pulling an oil press. Reducing that history to a joke for a comedy programme was not simply a failure of factual knowledge among participants; it was an editorial failure by the broadcaster that packaged and promoted the exchange as entertainment.
The High Court’s directions themselves underline that responsibility does not end with blaming an external producer. A television channel exercises editorial judgment over what it broadcasts, promotes and distributes.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
