The impugned order also permitted DMK to sue TVK Minister Aadhav Arjuna.

Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice GK Muthukumar admitted the appeal and adjourned the hearing to October 13.

It may be noted that on October 5, 2026, Justice Goviindarajan Thilakavadi had allowed an application filed by the party seeking leave of court to sue the two Ministers, IT Wing of the TVK party, Google LLC (which owns and operates YouTube), Meta Platforms Inc (which owns and operates Instagram), and X Corp (which owns and operates X, formerly Twitter).

The party had argued that on September 21, Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar had accused DMK of inaction regarding the POCSO case. The party also submitted that Minister Aadhav Arjuna, in a press meet held on September 21, had stated that the DMK, during its tenure, was operating a compromised police force that applied different laws to protect favoured industrialists, party members and what he called the then ruling family. It was further submitted that the IT wing of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party had publicised, reposted and circulated the said defamatory statements by the Ministers.

The party had thus sought damages to the tune of Rs 1,01,,00,000 alleging that the publications were false and defamatory imputations which had lowered the party's reputation.

The Ministers had challenged the leave to sue, arguing that the suit was barred for non-compliance of Section 80 of CPC. It was submitted that as per Section 80 of CPC, a mandatory 2-month prior written notice is necessary before filing any suit against the Central Government, State Government or a public officer for acts done in official capacity, unless urgent relief is sought with the court's permission. It was argued that both Aadhav Arjuna and Nirmal Kumar were made parties in the case in their capacity as public officers, and as such, the prior notice under Section 80 was mandatory.

The court was, however, not inclined to go into this argument at the stage of leave to sue. The court noted that its jurisdiction in the present application was confined to examining whether the requirements of Clause 12 were satisfied, i.e., whether a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court and whether leave ought to be granted.

The court also submitted that though the respondents were Ministers, it had to be looked into whether the act was done by them while discharging official functions or such other act. The court also added that the non-compliance of Section 80 notice could not be gone into at this stage, as it does not conclude the question of territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 or the maintainability of the civil action of defamation.

Thus, noting that a substantial and material part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction, the court was inclined to allow the application and permit the party to sue the Ministers and others.

Case Title: CTR Nirmal Kumar v Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others

Case NO: OSA 180/2026