Aadhav Arjuna; M.K. Stalin
| Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam; S. Siva Saravanan
The Madras High Court on Friday (August 28, 2026) ordered notices to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president M.K. Stalin and the DMK IT Wing on a civil suit filed by Tamil Nadu Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna, seeking damages of ₹1 crore for an X post, which claimed that an accused in a narcotics case, John Britto, was his relative.
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi ordered the notices, returnable by September 15, 2026, after hearing the preliminary submissions made by the Minister’s counsel A.P. Suryaprakasam, who contended that the X post was ex facie false and highly defamatory. The judge also took note of the fact that senior counsel J. Ravindran had entered appearance on behalf of the defendants.
The plaintiff wanted the court to declare that the X post shared by the DMK IT Wing on its official handle on June 8, 2026, was defamatory and order the payment of compensation to him for the loss of reputation, personal injury, and mental agony caused by the false statement.
Claiming that the post was not an isolated act of some social media functionary of the DMK but had been made on the instructions of former Chief Minister Mr. Stalin, “who exercises complete control over the affairs of the political party,” the Minister urged the court to grant a permanent injunction restraining Mr. Stalin and the DMK IT Wing from publishing such defamatory statements in future.
Minister demands public apology
The plaintiff further insisted that the defendants must also be directed to publish and circulate unconditional apologies in Tamil and English, not only via the DMK IT Wing’s social media accounts but also in widely circulated Tamil and English newspapers and on television channels. He wanted the apology to be published with equal prominence to that with which the defamatory statement was made.
The other prayer of the Minister was to direct the defendants to forthwith delete the defamatory post to the fullest extent possible, including the screenshots of the post that were in circulation on social media. He sought a direction to the defendants to surrender all electronic records related to the creation of the defamatory post and pay costs incurred for the filing of the present suit.
The plaintiff asserted that he had no connection whatsoever with the narcotics case accused John Britto, who was reportedly the brain behind the smuggling of ₹258 crore worth of banned substances. He said, in fact, his relative P. John Britto had lodged a complaint with the Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police saying he was not the same John Britto involved in the narcotics case and yet, he had been dragged in public discourse due to a similar name.
Published – August 28, 2026 11:43 am IST
