Reckless allegations made on social media against the newly inducted Ministers in the Tamil Nadu government would cause unnecessary anxiety in the minds of those individuals and ultimately interfere with the performance of their official duties, the Madras High Court has said.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observation while directing DMK sympathiser Vinoth Suriya Kumar to file an affidavit expressing regret for his false X post alleging that the Palani Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple land was registered in the name of a relative of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Minister Ramesh.

The affidavit must clearly mention that the message was posted without verification of the facts and that the content creator shall verify the prima facie existence/source of facts before sharing any kind of content on his social media handles, the court ordered.

Further, the judge made it clear that this order shall not preclude the Minister from initiating appropriate civil as well as criminal defamation proceedings against the individual concerned, if he chooses to do so. He recorded that Mr. Kumar’s counsel had conceded before the High Court that his client had levelled accusations against the Minister without verifying the facts and that the petitioner shall file an affidavit seeking to apologise.

“As for the comment that the Minister is involved and that the land was registered in the name of his relatives, it is admittedly incorrect and prima facie appears to be false information. When this Court specifically questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner, no justification was given to suggest the involvement of the Minister or his relatives. On the other hand, it is admitted that the post was erroneous and made without even verifying the facts,” the judge wrote.

He also said that attempts to get the Palani Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple land registered in the names of certain private individuals had taken place before the 2026 Assembly elections, when Mr. Ramesh of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) was not in the picture at all.

“Merely because the incident was reported after he assumed office, the petitioner, being a member of a political party, has made the aforesaid posts. Ordinarily, no interference can be made with such political criticism or campaigns, as they would fall within the ambit of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. However, in the instant case, the said posts, prima facie, appear to contain defamatory imputations against the Minister. Therefore, it will be open to the Minister concerned to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, for the offence of defamation,” the judge observed.

He, however, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the content creator on the basis of a complaint lodged by the Minister’s personal assistant. The judge said that the FIR could not be sustained since the legal provisions invoked by the cybercell police in Chennai would not get attracted at all.

Justice Chakravarthy said that Sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could have been invoked only if the dissemination of false information had been done with the intention of provoking riots or causing fear or alarm among the people at large. “Even as per the complaint, the petitioner’s intention is only political and aimed at spreading false and scurrilous information against the Minister,” Justice Chakravarthy concluded.