Madras High Court Directs Registry Not To Number DMK's Defamation Suit Against TVK Ministers Till October 13

The party had moved the defamation suit alleging that the Ministers made statements against the party in connection with the POCSO case involving granite baron Veeramani.

The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumar took note of the submission made by Senior Advocate J Ravindran, appearing for the party, assuring the court that the party will not number the suit till the appeal is heard.

“At this stage, Mr.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the papers have not been served and that the matters may be heard on merits on the next date of hearing. He also submitted that they would not number the suit till the next date of hearing. Hence, the statement is recorded. Registry is directed not to number C.S.Sr.No.168724 of 2026 until the next date of hearing. List the matter on 13.10.2026,” the court wrote in its order.

The party had approached the court claiming that on September 21, both Aadhav Arjuna and Nirmal Kumar of Chief Minister Vijay's TVK party had made statements accusing DMK of inaction regarding the POCSO case and claiming that the party, 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.

The party had argued that the Ministers, 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.

On October 5, a single judge had permitted the party to sue the ministers, IT Wing of the TVK, and others.

Though the Ministers had argued that a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was necessary before filing any suit against the Central Government, State Government or a public officer for acts done in official capacity, the court was not inclined to this argument at the stage of leave to sue. The court also submitted that though the respondents were Ministers, it had to be looked into whether the act was done by them while discharging official functions or such other act.

On October 6, Nirmal Kumar moved an appeal against this order. It was argued that the suit itself was not maintainable without Section 80 CPC. It was also argued that the suit against the IT wing of the party was not maintainable since the political party was not a juristic person.

After noting that DMK was not given papers of the appeal, the court adjourned the hearing and directed the registry not to number the defamation suit till then.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Vijay Narayan, AG and Mr. P. V. Balasubramanian, AAG for Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, Mr. G. Murugendran

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. Ravindran, SC for Mr. Vimal, Mr. Sathish Parasaran, SC for Ms. Pranjal Agarwal, Mr. G. Murugendran, Mr. P. V. Balasubramanian, AAG for Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan