Veeramani POCSO Case: Madras High Court Reserves Orders On DMK's Plea To Sue Ministers Aadhav Arjuna, CTR Nirmal Kumar For Defamation

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday (September 30), reserved orders on an application filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) seeking leave of the court to sue Tamil Nadu Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar, and others for alleged defamatory statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani. 

Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi reserved orders after hearing the party, the State, and the Ministers. 

The party has sought leave to sue the two Ministers, IT Wing of the TVK party, Google LLC (which owns and operates YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc (which owns and operates Instagram), and X Corp (which owns and operates X, formerly Twitter).

The party had argued that on September 21, Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar had accused DMK of inaction regarding the POCSO case. The party also submitted that Minister Aadhav Arjuna, in a press meet held on September 21, had stated that the DMK, during its tenure, was operating a compromised police force that applied different laws to protect favoured industrialists, party members and what he called the then ruling family. It was further submitted that the IT wing of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party had publicised, reposted and circulated the said defamatory statements by the Ministers.

The party argued that both Aadhav Arjuna and Nirmal Kumar, holding responsible public offices, had made the statements with the sole intention to defame the party, knowing fully well that the statements were false. It added that despite having sufficient opportunity to ascertain the true facts, the Ministers have proceeded to make the misleading imputations against the party, in an attempt to bring down its reputation in society.

When the matter was taken up by the court, the Ministers objected to the grant of leave to sue and argued that the notice necessary for initiating a suit against a public officer, as required under Section 80 of the CPC, was absent in the case.

It may be noted that as per Section 80 CPC, a mandatory 2-month prior written notice is necessary before filing any suit against the Central Government, State Government or a public officer for acts done in official capacity, unless urgent relief is sought with the court's permission.

Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the party, argued that such a notice was not required in the present case, as the party was challenging the defamatory statements made by Ministers and not something done in their official capacity.

"They are not entitled to a notice. All that I'm trying to say is that a remedy is open to them to file a revocation plea. This is not a discharge of official function but only defamation. If they're saying that this is their official function, that they have been appointed to say all this, I'll withdraw my plea," Ravindran argued. 

The Advocate General Vijay Narayanan, on the other hand, argued that the only question that had to be considered at this stage was whether leave to sue could be granted when the plaint itself was barred by statute for not complying with the mandatory requirement of a notice under Section 80 of CPC.

"If you're filing suit against the government or a public officer you have to give notice under Section 80. Otherwise the suit is barred at the threshold. If there's a statutory bar, even a leave to sue application cannot stand. The Suit will have to be rejected at the threshold and leave to sue will also have to be rejected," the AG argued.

The AG also submitted that Aadhav Arjuna and Nirmal Kumar were made parties in the case in their capacity as public officers. It was pointed out that the plaint itself had stated that the Ministers, holding public office, should not have made such defamatory statements. Thus, the AG submitted that no suit could be instituted unless the mandatory notice under Section 80 was issued.

"Both these people were impleaded in their capacity as public officers. Today they're holding office as Ministers. Therefore, no suit can be instituted unless a Section 80 notice is given. There's an object behind it," the AG submitted.

After hearing the parties, the court has now reserved orders on the application seeking leave to sue.

Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate J Ravindran

Counsel for Respondents: Mr Vijay Narayanan, Advocate General, Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, T Mahendhran, Mohan Parthasarathy, K Nishvakk.

Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v CTR Nirmal Kumar And Others

Case No: A 4180 of 2026 and CS 168724 of 2026 (Filing No)