The case is expected to be listed for hearing before Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi on Wednesday (September 30, 2026).
Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna and Minister for Energy Resources and Law C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar have urged the Madras High Court not to grant leave to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) to file a ₹1 crore defamation suit against them in connection with the child sexual abuse case pending against R. Veeramani of Gem Granites.
In a counter affidavit filed through senior counsel Vijay Narayan, the Law Minister denied all allegations of having made false and defamatory statements against DMK in connection with the child sexual abuse case. He also contended that the suit in its present form was not maintainable for want of adherence to procedures prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
“Considering the limited scope of adjudication in the present application seeking leave to sue, I am not traversing upon the correctness/tenability of the plea of alleged defamation. Suffice it to state that the said statements, which were made by me in discharge of my duties rendered in my official capacity, do not constitute defamation by any stretch of imagination under law or in fact,” his counter read.
He said a reading of the averments made by DMK in its plaint makes it crystal clear that the party was seeking to proceed against him and Mr. Arjuna in respect of their acts in discharge of their official capacities. “As a necessary corollary, I am advised to state that the procedure spelt out under Section 80 of the CPC ought to have been followed prior to the filing of the proposed plaint,” he added.
The Minister contended that DMK ought to have served notices upon him and Mr. Arjuna as contemplated under Section 80(1) of the CPC before filing the suit or it ought to have obtained the leave of the High Court under Section 80(2) of CPC to dispense with the mandatory requirement under Section 80(1). Since neither of it had been done, the maintainability of the suit itself would stand vitiated, he said.
His counter also stated that “having chosen to sue me as a Minister, having described my statements as made while holding and purporting to speak from the public office, and having founded the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on that very office, it is not open to the applicant (DMK) to subsequently contend that I have been sued in my personal capacity in order to escape the rigour of Section 80 of the CPC.”
Stating that the statements attributed to him were made in the course of the media interactions since he, as a Minister, was answerable to the people at large especially on serious issues concerning child sexual abuse, Mr. Kumar said, he would have explained his position clearly if the DMK had served notice upon him as required under Section 80 of the CPC. He urged the court to dismiss DMK’s application with exemplary costs.
Mr. Arjuna too 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 (September 30, 2026).
Published – September 30, 2026 12:13 am IST
