The Madras High Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) granted leave (permission) to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to file a ₹1-crore defamation suit against Ministers Aadhav Arjuna, C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar, and the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) Information Technology wing.

Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed an application filed by the DMK, through senior counsel J. Ravindran, seeking the leave of the court, as the TVK IT Wing’s office, as well as the headquarters of social media giants such as X Corp, Meta Platforms, and YouTube, were located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

The plaintiff party, represented by its general secretary Duraimurugan, had filed the defamation suit seeking damages from the two Ministers as well as the TVK’s IT wing for reportedly accusing the DMK of having shielded child sexual abuse case accused R. Veeramani of Gem Granites during the party’s previous regime.

In its plaint, the plaintiff party said that the First Information Report (FIR) in the case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, was promptly registered during its rule on October 7, 2025, just a day after a child rights activist had handed over a video clipping of the alleged sexual assault of a minor girl child to the police.

Thereafter, the investigation proceeded in accordance with the law on the basis of the available evidence. Making it clear that the DMK, being the then ruling party, had not interfered with the investigation in any manner whatsoever, the court was told that the party had no connection or connivance with the accused.

On the other hand, the two Ministers vehemently opposed the plea for grant of leave on the ground that the suit, in its present form, was not maintainable for want of adherence to procedures prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Ministers said that the DMK had failed to issue notices to them under Section 80 of the CPC.

Claiming they had been sued in their official capacity as members of the State Cabinet, the Ministers said that the plaintiff party ought to have issued notices to them under Section 80(1) of the CPC or in the alternative obtained the leave of the court under Section 80(2) for dispensing with the statutory requirement of issuing such notice.