MK Stalin Argues Against Liability for Social Media Posts in Madras High Court

Introduction

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president MK Stalin has presented a strong defense to the Madras High Court, asserting that he cannot be legally accountable for every social media post made by the various wings or members of his political party. This argument was part of a counter-affidavit submitted in response to interim relief applications in a defamation lawsuit filed by Tamil Nadu Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Aadhav Arjuna.

Contents

The Defamation Suit

The defamation suit, seeking ₹1 crore in damages, was initiated by Arjuna following a post by the DMK IT Wing. The post allegedly linked Arjuna to John Britto, an individual accused in a ₹258 crore drug trafficking case. Stalin clarified his position, stating, “The mere fact that 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.”

Stalin’s Legal Standpoint

Stalin contends that although he holds administrative control over the office bearers of the party’s wings, this should not be equated with legal liability for their individual actions. He explicitly denied giving any instructions or approval for the post that linked Arjuna to John Britto or the drug trafficking case.

Court Proceedings

The case is being heard by Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi. Earlier, the High Court had issued a notice to Stalin and the DMK IT Wing. The matter was adjourned to September 22, allowing Stalin time to file his counter-affidavit. Stalin has requested the dismissal of Arjuna’s interim applications with exemplary costs.

The DMK IT Wing’s controversial post described John Britto as being involved in a narcotics case and implied a familial link to Arjuna. Despite Arjuna’s assertion that Britto is not his relative, the post remained live until it was deleted. Arjuna has accused the DMK of deliberately confusing Britto with a relative who shares a similar name.

Arguments Against Interim Relief

In his counter, Stalin highlighted that Arjuna acknowledged having a relative named John Britto, who approached the Greater Chennai Police claiming he was not the individual mentioned in an Enforcement Directorate press release. Stalin also referenced past criminal cases involving Arjuna and his family, arguing that Arjuna had withheld material facts from the Court.

Freedom of Speech

Stalin cited a March 2026 speech where Arjuna allegedly referred to him as a “foolish Chief Minister” to argue that Arjuna could not claim reputational harm in the defamation case. The DMK president maintains that Arjuna’s requests for an apology, content removal, and surrender of electronic records are premature since the disputed post has already been deleted. Furthermore, Stalin invoked the right to freedom of speech, emphasizing that this right includes the freedom to criticize public figures. He argued that preventing an opposition party from criticizing a sitting minister could have a chilling effect on political speech.