Chennai: Former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has filed a counter-affidavit in the Chennai High Court, seeking dismissal with costs of the lawsuit filed against him by Minister Aadhav Arjuna, who has demanded Rs. 1 crore in damages for defamation.
Former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had posted on his X account that John Britto, who is linked to a drug smuggling case, is a relative of Minister Aadhav Arjuna.
Pointing to a statement issued by the Enforcement Directorate, he had said that the truth had been exposed that John Britto, who acted as the mastermind in the Rs. 258 crore drug smuggling case, is a relative of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department Minister Aadhav Arjuna.
However, Minister Aadhav Arjuna had filed a case in the Chennai High Court against former Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, seeking Rs. 1 crore in damages for defamation, claiming that John Britto, whom the Enforcement Directorate had mentioned, was not his relative. The High Court had directed M.K. Stalin and the DMK IT wing to respond in this case.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice Govindarajan Thilakavathi, the reply petition filed on behalf of M.K. Stalin stated that the Enforcement Directorate has cases against Aadhav Arjuna’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, and his mother-in-law’s brother. Aadhav Arjuna is also facing a CBI case.
In the nomination filed in the Villivakkam constituency, Aadhav Arjuna has said that he faced a CBI inquiry in connection with the deaths in the Karur stampede. But he filed this case while concealing all that. Since he has not approached the court with clean hands, he has no right to seek any relief.
I did not give any approval or instructions to the IT wing to publish posts regarding drug smuggling or linking Minister Aadhav Arjuna’s relative John Britto. I cannot be held responsible, merely because I am the party president, for posts published on social media by various wings of the party.
As the party leader, he has only administrative control over the office-bearers of various wings; he cannot be held legally responsible for the personal actions of the members of that wing. In his petition, Aadhav Arjuna did not deny either that the minister has a relative named John Britto or that there is an Enforcement Directorate case against him.
Therefore, the allegations made by Minister Aadhav Arjuna that the posts were published with deliberate intent are baseless. Given that Aadhav Arjuna’s family members have been involved in various criminal cases, his claim that he was insulted is strange.
Already, Aadhav Arjuna, who had spoken critically about him in a personal manner, cannot now seek damages. No evidence was submitted to support the allegation that his reputation was tarnished. It was stated that since this case is not fit for trial, it should be dismissed with a fine.
Following this, accepting the request made by the DMK IT Wing for time to file a counter affidavit in this case, the hearing was adjourned to October 26.