Ministers challenge DMK's ₹1 crore defamation suit in Madras High Court

Two Tamil Nadu ministers have moved the Madras High Court opposing the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's attempt to obtain leave to file a ₹1 crore defamation suit against them, arguing that the proposed plaint does not satisfy mandatory procedural requirements.

Minister for Energy Resources and Law C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar and Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna filed separate counter affidavits in response to the DMK's application. The suit relates to statements the two made in connection with the child sexual abuse case pending against R. Veeramani of Gem Granites.

In his counter, filed through senior counsel Vijay Narayan, the Law Minister denied making any false or defamatory statements against the DMK. He submitted that the statements were made in the discharge of his official duties and do not amount to defamation in law or in fact. He added that he was not addressing the merits of the defamation claim at this stage, given the limited scope of the leave application.

The Minister contended that the DMK's plaint makes clear it seeks to proceed against the two ministers for acts carried out in their official capacities. Consequently, he argued, the party was required to follow the procedure under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before filing the suit.

Under Section 80(1) of the CPC, a notice must be served on a public officer before a suit is instituted against them. Alternatively, a plaintiff may seek the High Court's leave under Section 80(2) to dispense with that requirement. According to the Minister, neither course was followed, which he said vitiates the maintainability of the suit itself.

He further submitted that having chosen to sue him as a Minister and having founded the court's jurisdiction on that office, the DMK cannot later claim he has been sued in a personal capacity to avoid the rigour of Section 80. He said that had a notice been served, he would have explained his position clearly, noting that his statements were made during media interactions as he was answerable to the public on serious issues concerning child sexual abuse.

The Minister urged the court to dismiss the DMK's application with exemplary costs. Mr. Arjuna filed a similar counter affidavit through senior counsel Satish Parasaran, assisted by advocates Dixita Gohil and Pranjal Agarwal.

The case is expected to be listed for hearing before Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi on Wednesday.