‘Can’t Be Held Liable For Every DMK Social Media Post’: M K Stalin Tells Madras HC In Aadhav Arjuna’s ₹1-Crore Defamation Suit

DMK president M K Stalin has denied any role in a social-media post by the party’s Information Technology Wing that allegedly linked Tamil Nadu Minister and TVK leader Aadhav Arjuna to a person accused in a drug-trafficking case, telling the Madras High Court that he cannot be held legally responsible for every post published by a party wing or functionary.

In a written statement filed before the high court, Stalin has sought dismissal of Arjuna’s ₹1-crore defamation suit, contending that the suit is not maintainable, discloses no cause of action against him and suppresses material facts.

The dispute arose from a June 8, 2026 post on the DMK IT Wing’s X account, which, according to Arjuna’s suit, alleged that one John Britto, described as the alleged mastermind of a drug-trafficking operation involving narcotics worth ₹258 crore seized in Chennai and Ramanathapuram, was Arjuna’s close relative. Arjuna has maintained that the allegation was false and that he had no connection with the accused.

Arjuna subsequently issued a legal notice to Stalin and the DMK IT Wing seeking an unconditional apology. He then approached the high court seeking, among other reliefs, removal of the allegedly defamatory posts, an injunction against similar publications and ₹1 crore in damages for alleged loss of reputation, personal injury and mental agony.

The Madras High Court issued notice to Stalin and the DMK IT Wing in August. On September 15, the matter was adjourned after Stalin’s counsel sought time to file his counter.

What is Stalin’s defence?

Stalin has categorically denied authoring, directing, approving or even having knowledge of the alleged post. He says he was unable to access the hyperlink cited by Arjuna because the post was unavailable. He has also denied that the publication was part of any campaign orchestrated by him for a political purpose.

More importantly, Stalin disputes the attempt to make him vicariously liable merely because he is the DMK president. While acknowledging that he exercises administrative control over party office-bearers, he says this does not make him legally responsible for individual acts of party members or posts made through the social-media accounts of different party wings.

He has also argued that, even assuming the post was published, it did not allege that Arjuna himself had committed any crime. According to Stalin, merely stating that a person is related to an alleged offender cannot by itself amount to defamation unless the criminal activity is linked to that person.

The written statement also focuses on criminal cases and investigations involving Arjuna and members of his family. Stalin alleges that these facts were suppressed from the plaint. He refers to Arjuna’s 2026 election affidavit, which he says disclosed a CBI investigation concerning the Karur stampede case, and to the election affidavit of Arjuna’s mother-in-law Leemarose Martin, which disclosed four criminal cases, including three investigated by the Enforcement Directorate.

Stalin also relies on the case status of SC No. 533 of 2018 before the Special Court, Ernakulam, claiming that Arjuna’s wife, mother-in-law and John Britto are shown as accused in that case. On this basis, he argues that Arjuna has not established how the alleged post damaged his reputation merely by associating him with a person facing criminal proceedings.

Stalin further refers to a March 12, 2026 political protest where, according to his written statement, Arjuna described him twice as a “foolish Chief Minister”. Stalin characterises the remarks as a personal and derogatory attack rather than political criticism and says Arjuna’s claim to reputation and goodwill must be tested against his own public conduct.

The DMK president has also invoked Article 19(1)(a), arguing that freedom of speech and expression protects criticism of public figures and that restrictions on criticism by an opposition party could have a chilling effect on free speech.

Stalin has urged the high court to dismiss the suit. The matter is now listed for further hearing on October 26.

Case Title: Mr. Aadhav Arjuna vs. Mr.M.K.Stalin and Anothers