NTK’s ‘Saattai’ Duraimurugan had petitioned the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail

ByTech Word News

“Saattai” Duraimurugan. File | Photo credit: M. Moorthy

Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) office bearer A. Duraimurugan alias “Saattai” Duraimurugan has approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him by the Chennai Cyber ​​Crime Wing for posting a defamatory video against Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijad and Sports Development Minister Ajuna Arjuna

The plea was listed for hearing before Justice N. Ramesh on Thursday (October 29, 2026). A First Information Report (FIR) was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) cadre A. Christopher, a fisherman by profession, from Tondiarpet, in Chennai, on October 3, 2026. The complaint related to a specific YouTube video uploaded on September 30, 2026.

The complainant said that the NTK official, also a YouTuber, made derogatory remarks against the minister for addressing him as his younger brother. The anticipatory bail applicant further leveled baseless allegations against the ruling government, accusing it of doing nothing during its ‘honeymoon period’ of 143 days since assuming power in the state.

On the other hand, the petitioner described the allegations leveled against him in the complaint as false and politically motivated. He said the FIR was registered to curtail freedom of speech and expression and subvert democratic dissent. He claimed that his YouTube video only contained decent political constructive criticism of the state government in the interest of the general public.

“As a political leader, the petitioner has a duty towards the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu,” Mr. Duraimurugan said, accusing the TVK cadre of filing a complaint against him without any standing. He alleged that the FIR was registered with an intention to remove the controversial YouTube video from social media platforms as it was damaging the image of the ruling party.

Claiming that the case did not require his custodial interrogation and that he had already appeared for the police investigation, the appellant indicated that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and appear for the investigation in the future.

Published – 29 Oct 2026 01:21 IST