DMK Moves Madras HC Against Palaniswami For Defamation, Seeks Rs.1 Crore In Damages

The ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu filed a suit in the Madras High Court on Friday seeking ₹1 crore in damages from AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami for allegedly making defamatory statements about the party on social media.

Justice R.M.T. Teekaa Raman, before whom the suit was presented by DMK’s organization secretary R.S. Bharathi, scheduled further hearings for next week.

In his suit, Bharathi requested that the court restrain Palaniswami, the Leader of the Opposition, from making any references to the DMK concerning Jaffer Sadiq, an alleged drug kingpin.

The suit highlights a post made by Palaniswami on March 8, 2024, where he purportedly accused the DMK of contributing to an increased crime rate and causing embarrassment to Tamil Nadu due to drug trafficking. Palaniswami’s post encouraged the public to participate in a human chain demonstration against the DMK’s governance.

Bharathi noted that Palaniswami reiterated these allegations in a follow-up post the next day on X (formerly Twitter), where he changed his account name to include “Say No To Drugs & DMK.”

He further alleged that Palaniswami’s posts directly implicated the DMK, its President and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, and Youth Wing Secretary Udhayanidhi, suggesting they were associated with Jaffer Sadiq, who was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau for alleged involvement in international drug trafficking.

Bharathi contended that Palaniswami’s defamatory statements aimed to tarnish the DMK’s reputation by linking it to Sadiq.

He emphasized that the DMK, as a political entity, had no connection to Sadiq’s actions. Notably, Sadiq was removed from his position as Chennai West Deputy Coordinator of the DMK’s NRI wing on February 25, 2024, well before his arrest, nullifying any supposed ties between him and the DMK.

Bharathi argued that Palaniswami, disregarding this widely reported fact, continued to associate Sadiq’s actions with the DMK, which he deemed false and unfounded. He asserted that the posts lacked merit or truth and were published prematurely, without any effort to verify their accuracy.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International