BY SPEED POST Date: 15.06.2026 To 1. Mr. M.K. Stalin, The President, DravidaMunnetraKazhagam (DMK) Anna Arivalayam 367/369, Anna Salai Teynampet Chennai — 600018 Tamil Nadu, India 2. The Head / Coordinator DMK Information Technology Wing Anna Arivalayam 367/369, Anna Salai Teynampet Chennai — 600018 Tamil Nadu, India Sir(s), Under instructions and on behalf of my client Mr. Aadhav Arjuna, Hon’ble Minister for Public Works Department, Highways, Minor Ports and Sports Development, Government of Tamil Nadu, I hereby issue the following Legal Notice: L My client states that he is a highly respected public servant, political leader, sports

BY SPEED POST
Date: 15.06.2026 To
1. Mr. M.K. Stalin, The President,
DravidaMunnetraKazhagam (DMK)
Anna Arivalayam
367/369, Anna Salai
Teynampet
Chennai — 600018
Tamil Nadu, India
2. The Head / Coordinator
DMK Information Technology Wing
Anna Arivalayam
367/369, Anna Salai
Teynampet
Chennai — 600018
Tamil Nadu, India
Sir(s),
Under instructions and on behalf of my client Mr. Aadhav Arjuna, Hon’ble Minister for
Public Works Department, Highways, Minor Ports and Sports Development, Government of Tamil Nadu, I hereby issue the following Legal Notice:
L My client states that he is a highly respected public servant, political leader, sports administrator, entrepreneur and philanthropist. He presently holds the office of Hon’ble Minister for Public Works Department, Highways, Minor Ports and Sports Development, Government of Tamil Nadu. By virtue of his public life, public service, accomplishments and impeccable reputation earned over several years, my client enjoys immense goodwill, credibility and esteem amongst the public.
2. My client states that on 08.06.2026, you published a post through the aforesaid X account bearing the
3
The said publication was deliberately disseminated through a platform possessing substantial public reach and influence. As on 10.06.2026, within merely two days of publication, the impugned post had already garnered approximately 2.67 lakh views, 2,600 reposts, 4,400 likes, 180 replies/comments and 236 bookmarks, apart from further circulation through screenshots, secondary publications, digital Inedia reports, WhatsApp groups and other social media platforms. The speed, scale and extent of dissem ination demonstrate that the publication was cornmunicated to an extraordinarily wide audience, thereby causing extensive reputational harm to my client.
3. My client states that the impugned publication was not an isolated act of a social media functionary but was published pursuant to the advice, directions, instructions and/or approval of Mr. M.K. Stalin, President of the DravidaMunnetraKazhagam (DMK). My client states that Mr. M.K. Stalin exercised control, supervision and authority over the affairs of the Party and is therefore responsible for, and accountable in respect of, the publication and dissemination of the impugned post.
4. My client states that in the aforesaid publication, you have falsely, recklessly and mal iciously published the following statement:
LOØ0.1Lh
uDgoyd’ U.258 G51T4 LDS)ÜIL96VIT65T G)urruär
UOGD6ffU.JfT3# ‘grrd7L9fjÜGLN, yjGUff6DYUJ

2-pa5)6öTfj 6T6åp 4 LhU6VLDffC)U46fr6W$.
The aforesaid statement, translated into English, reads as follows:
“According to the official press release of the Enforcement Directorate, John Britto, who acted as the mastermind behind the drug trafficking operation involving narcotics
3
worth Rs.258 Crores seized in Chennai and Ramanathapuram, is a close relative of
Mr. Aadhav Arjuna, and this shocking truth has now come to light. ”
5. My client categorically states that the aforesaid statement is wholly false, fabricated, malicious and devoid of any factual basis whatsoever. Mr. John Britto, who is alleged to be involved in the Enforcement Directorate proceedings referred to in the impugned publication, is not a relative, much less a close relative, of my client. The allegation has been published without any verification, without any supporting material and in complete disregard of the truth.
6. My client further states that one Mr. P. John Britto, who is in fact related to my client, had lodged a formal complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, specifically stating that he is not the “John Britto” referred to in the Enforcement Directorate proceedings and that he had been falsely identified and implicated in public discourse owing to the similarity of names. In the said complaint, Mr. P. John Britto categorically clarified that the individual allegedly implicated in the Enforcement Directorate case is an altogether different person and bears no
connection to him.
7. The aforesaid complaint clearly establishes that there existed readily available material demonstrating that the “John Britto” referred to in the Enforcement Directorate proceedings and Mr. P. John Britto are two distinct individuals. Consequently, any attempt to portray the said individual as a relative of my client, without undertaking even the most basic verification, is manifestly reckless, irresponsible and mala fide.
8. My client states that the impugned publication becomes even more egregious in light of the aforesaid facts. Despite the existence of a formal complaint clarifying the Inistaken identity and despite the ease with which the true facts you with the malfide
3
intention to defame my client chose topublish and disseminate the impugned allegation as a purported “shocking truth”. Such conduct demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the truth and evidences a malicious intention to injure the reputation of my client rather than to inform the public of any genuine fact.
9. My client states that the publication bears all the hallmarks of a calculated and motivated act of character assassination. The allegation was presented as an established fact and as a purportedly verified “shocking truth”, notwithstanding the complete absence of any verified material supporting the same. The publication was not the result of an innocent mistake or inadvertent error. On the contrary, it was the product of a deliberate decision to publish a highly dannaging allegation without verification, with full knowledge that such publication would create public suspicion and hostility against my client. Though the first of you being a leader of a party which is 75 years Old and a former Chief Minister of the State such conduct shows that you are politically motivated to defame my client•s reputation. The subsequent deletion of the publication after the true facts emerged further demonstrates the complete absence of any factual foundation for the allegation at the time of publication which has caused much damage to my client.
10. My client states that the defamatory nature of the publication is self-evident. The publication does not merely make a false statement regarding a purported familial relationship. Rather, it deliberately and maliciously associates my client with an individual described in the publication itself as the mastermind behind an alleged drug trafficking operation involving narcotics valued at approximately Rs.258 Crores.
I l. By placing the false allegation regarding a purported familial relationship immediately alongside allegations concerning large-scale narcotics trafficking, you have intentionally sought to create the impression that my client is personally connected with, associated with, linked to or otherwise connected with the alleged
3

criminal activities attributed to Mr. John Britto. The publication constitutes a deliberate and calculated attempt to tarnish the reputation of my client through guilt by association.
12. My client states that such deliberately conveyed message that a close relative of my client who is alleged to have been involved in a serious criminal activity thereby questioning the integrity of Hon’ble Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Such a publication is inherently defamatory and is intended to defame my client in the eyes
of Public.
1 3. My client further states that the use of expressions such as
(close relative) and (the shocking
truth has come to light) clearly demonstrates malice, premeditation and a deliberate intention connecting the crime to my client without any basis. You have purportedly published as if it is an established or verified fact.
14. My client states that the publication was made recklessly and with complete disregard for the truth. Prior to publishing the impugned statement, you neither undertook any reasonable verification nor possessed any credible material capable of substantiating the allegation. The publication of such a serious allegation without verification constitutes gross irresponsibility and evidences a clear intention to damage my client’s reputation.
1 5. My client further states that the impugned publication is especially pernicious because it seeks to exploit public concern regarding narcotics trafficking and organised criminal activity for the purpose of political character assassination. By falsely portraying an alleged narcotics trafficker as a close relative of my client, the publication was calculated to create suspicion against my client without any factual basis whatsoever. Such conduct goes far beyond the permissible limits of political criticism and constitutes a deliberate attempt at reputational sabotage.
16. The gravity of the defamatory publication is considerably aggravated by the fact that it emanates from the official social media account of a major political party’s Information Technology Wing and has caused much more damage to the reputation of my client.
17. My client states that the publication has caused severe injury to his reputation, dignity, integrity, credibility and public standing. The damage is further aggravated by the extraordinary reach of the publication, which had already garnered approximately 2.67 lakh views within merely two days of publication. The Hon’ble Minister holding constitutional office, any false publication associating my client with an individual alleged to be involved in serious criminal activity has the natural and inevitable tendency to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, undermine public confidence in him and damage his standing amongst citizens, colleagues, public officials and political stakeholders.
18. The malicious intcnt underlying the publication is evident not merely from the falsity of the allegation but from the manner in which it has been framed. The publication deliberately describes the allegation as an (“shocking
truth”) and falsely attributes legitimacy to the allegation by invoking an official Enforcement Directorate press release. The obvious purpose of such wording was to sensationalize the allegation, lend it an appearance of authenticity, maximize public outrage, encourage widespread circulation and deliberately tarnish the reputation of my client by falsely associating him with a person alleged to have been involved in a narcotics trafficking operation.
19. My client states that the subsequent deletion for the reasons only known to you it has caused a damage to my client’s reputation.
20. My client further states that despite deleting the impugned publication, you have failed to issue any clarification, correctionor apology.Howeverthe false and defamatory impression created by your Publication remains uncorrected. The reputational injury caused to my client therefore continues notwithstanding the subsequent deletion of the post.
21 . My client states that the deletion of the publication cannot absolve you of liability for the publication and dissemination of the false and defamatory statement. The cause of action arose the moment the defamatory statement was published and communicated to the public and continues to subsist notwithstanding any subsequent deletion of the publication.
22. My client states that your actions amount to publication and dissemination of false and defamatory imputations attracting both civil and criminal consequences, includingliability under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and such other provisions of law as may be applicable.
23. My client has suffered immense reputational damage, mental agony, humiliation and injury to his public standing owing to your unlawful actions. My client reserves his right to initiate appropriate civil proceedings for damages as well as criminal proceedings before the competent courts and authorities.
24. My client states that on seeing the publication my client’s relatives and friends believed it to be true and started to avoid and shunning his company and thus you have wilfully and wantonly caused immense damage not only in the eye of my client’s relatives, friends, well wishers and also in the eye of society.

25. Therefore, you are hereby called upon to:
a) Publish and circulate an unconditional apologyin both Tamil and English through the official @DMKITwing account and all other social media platforms operated or controlled by you, with prominence equal to or greater than that accorded to the impugned publication.
b) Further, the first of you namely Mr. M.K. Stalin and the second of you DMK IT Wing, shall separately and publicly issue unconditional apologies and retractions through their respective official communication channels and social media platforms and publish the same unconditional apologies that what has been Published was a false, incorrect and devoid of facts and mistake of identity in widely circulated Tamil and English daily newspapers, Television channels with due prominence and visibility, so as to ensure dissemination to an audience comparable to or greater than that reached by the impugned publication.
c) Desist from publishing, circulating, repeating, reposting, restoring, endorsing or otherwise disseminating the impugned allegation or any similar false and defamatory statements concerning my client;
d) Remove and procure the removal, to the fullest extent possible, of any reposts, derivative publications, graphics, videos, posts or other content under your control that reproduce, repeat or endorse the defamatory allegation contained in the impugned publication;
e) Surrender all electronic records, internal communications, approvals, instructions, drafts, metadata, backend logs, account activity records and all other digital evidence relating to the creation, approval, publication, dissem ination and subsequent deletion of the impugned post;
3 —
f) Pay a sum of Rs. I (Rupees OneCrore Only) towards damages and compensation for the grave loss of reputation, mental agony, humiliation and injury caused to my client;
26. You are hereby granted 48 hours from the date of receipt of this Notice to comply with the aforesaid demands.
27. Failing compliance within the stipulated period, my client shall be constrained to initiate appropriate civil, criminal and other legal proceedings before all competent forums, including proceedings seeking damages, injunctions, take-down orders, disclosure of the identities of all persons responsible for authoring, approving and publishing the impugned content, and all other remedies available in law, entirely at your risk as to costs and consequences.
A copy of this Notice is retained in my office for future reference.

R. MOHAN PARTHASARATHY
ADVOCATE
3 –