I can't be held liable for every social media post by DMK wings: MK Stalin to Madras High Court

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president MK Stalin has told the Madras High Court that merely being the head of a political party cannot make him legally responsible for every social-media post published by its various wings or functionaries [Aadhav Arjuna Vs Stalin].

Stalin made the submission in a counter-affidavit opposing applications for interim relief in a ₹1 crore defamation suit filed by Tamil Nadu Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Aadhav Arjuna.

The suit was filed against Stalin by Arjuna over a DMK IT Wing post that linked him to a person accused in a ₹258 crore drug trafficking case.

“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 has contended.

Stalin said that while he exercises administrative control over office bearers of the party’s various wings, this cannot translate into legal liability for their individual acts. He specifically denied instructing or approving any post linking Arjuna or his family to a person named John Britto or to a drug trafficking case.

Arjuna's suit is pending before Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi. The High Court had earlier issued notice to Stalin and the DMK IT Wing. The matter had earlier been adjourned till today (September 22), after Stalin sought time to file his counter-affidavit. He has sought the dismissal of the interim applications filed by Arjuna with exemplary costs.

The dispute arose from a DMK IT Wing post concerning one John Britto, who was described as being involved in a narcotics case. Britto was described as Arjuna's relative in the said post.

Arjuna has maintained that the accused John Britto is not his relative. He accused the DMK of deliberately conflating the drug accused with Arjuna's relative, because they shared similar names.

The DMK's post linking Arjuna and Britto was subsequently deleted. Arjuna then moved the High Court against Stalin and the DMK IT Wing, seeking ₹1 crore in damages, an apology and injunctive relief.

In his counter, Stalin noted that Arjuna himself had acknowledged having a relative named John Britto, who had approached the Greater Chennai Police claiming that he was not the person mentioned in a press release issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Stalin further relied on criminal cases allegedly involving Arjuna and some of his family members to argue that Arjuna had approached the Court without disclosing material facts.

Stalin also relied on a March 2026 speech in which Arjuna allegedly called him a “foolish Chief Minister” twice. He argued that a person who had himself used such language against a political opponent could not claim the kind of reputational injury asserted in the defamation suit.

The DMK president further contended that Arjuna's interim prayers for an apology, removal of content and the surrender of electronic records were premature.

Since the disputed post had already been removed and was unavailable online, Stalin argued that the application seeking its removal had become infructuous.

He also invoked the right to freedom of speech, arguing that it includes the freedom to criticise public figures and that restraining an opposition party from criticising a sitting minister could have a chilling effect on political speech.

Stalin is being represented by Advocate Richard Wilson.