The argument was made by way of a counter in a defamation plea filed by Minister Aadhav Arjuna seeking to restrain Stalin and the DMK's IT Wing from making false and defamatory statements against him. The Minister has also sought damages of Rs, 1 Crore from Stalin and the party's IT Wing.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Justice Govindarajan Thilakavadi was informed that Stalin has filed his counter in the plea and the IT wing would also file its counter. The court then adjourned the plea and decided to hear the matter on October 26.

Arjuna had argued that on June 8th, 2026, the IT wing of the party had posted on its social media page, linking the Minister to an alleged drug trafficking case. In the post, the party had stated that one individual, John Britto, who was the mastermind behind a drug trafficking operation involving Rs 258 crores seized in Chennai and Ramanathapuram, was a close relative of the Minister.

The Minister submitted that the above statement was wholly false, fabricated, malicious, and devoid of any merit, and he was in no way connected to the accused in the drug trafficking case. The Minister argued that the post was made deliberately as part of a targeted campaign of disseminating false allegations to tarnish his image and lower his standing.

Arjuna further argued that Stalin, being the President of the party, exercises control, supervision and overarching authority over the affairs of the party, including its IT Wing. He thus argued that Stalin was responsible for the defamatory post.

Denying these allegations, Stalin argued that he had not instructed the IT Wing to publish any alleged post against Arjuna and the attempt to fasten vicarious responsibility on Stalin was misfounded.

Stalin also argued that as the head of the party, he exercises administrative control over the office bearers of various wings of the party but could not be held responsible for the individual acts of the members or the wings of the party.

"The mere fact that the I am the President of the DMK does not render me liable for every post published through the social media accounts of the various wings/functionaries of the party. Though I am the head of the party and I exercise administrative control over the office bearers of various wings of the party, I cannot be legally responsible or liable for any individual acts of the members or wings of the party," his affidavit states.

Stalin also called upon Arjuna to prove that he had specifically instructed the party to publish the alleged information against Arjuna.

Stalin also pointed out that though Arjuna claimed that association with an individual facing investigation had tarnished his reputation, Arjuna himself was facing prosecution by the CBI in connection with the Karur Stampede case. He also argued that Arjuna's wife, mother-in-law, and father-in-law were also facing prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate. He thus argued that Arjuna's claim that there was character assassination was false.

It was argued that when Arjuna had not distanced himself from the family members who were being investigated by the ED, he could not claim to be defamed for being linked to others accused of different criminal activity.

Stalin also pointed out that Arjuna had been using intemperate and abusive language against him and his family during the election campaigning and even after being appointed as Minister. Pointing to the statements made by Arjuna, calling Stalin as a foolish Chief Minister, it was argued that Arjuna, who had himself indulged in publicly abusing Stalin using intemperate language could not claim any reputation or goodwill.

Stalin further argued that Arjuna had not produced any material to demonstrate loss of reputation, public standing or goodwill by any alleged act of Stalin, or any actual or imminent invasion of his reputation.

Thus, Stalin called for dismissing the plea filed by Arjuna with exemplary costs.

Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v MK Stalin and Another

Case No: CS 200 of 2026