Leader Tamaga vettri kazhagam (TVK) Aadhav Arjuna. File | Photo Credit: x/@aadhavarjuna
Madras High Court on Friday (October 3, 2025). He ordered the police Greater Chennai City to prove seriousness in the investigation of a case registered against the leader of Tamilaga vettri kazhagam (TVK) Aadhav arjuna for his inflammatory tweet (which later) indicating a rebellion against Tamil Nadu by the government by young people and gene, as it happened in Sri Lanka and Nepal.
The justice of N. Senthilkumar issued a direction and liquidated the written petition submitted by Sm Kathiravan of Anna Nagar in Chennai. The petitioner was looking for the direction of the city police to register the first information report (companies) against Mr. Arjuna on the basis of the complaint he filed.
During the meeting on the case of the prosecutor Hasan Mohammad Jinnah and the next general advocate J. Ravindran, the court reported that the police had already registered a company against Mr. Arjuna according to various legal provisions with regard to tweet on its x handle.
“Even a small spark can lead to a disaster”
However, he wondered if the fir registration was enough despite the release of serious crimes, the judge asked, “What steps did you take? Even a small spark can lead to disaster. Can you allow someone to speak? There is no law and order?
The judge also asked, “Are people above the law? Do people think no one can do anything to them? Do you want the court to be a mute viewer for all these things?” He said that the fundamental right to speech and expression was not an unlimited law and was subject to a reasonable restriction.
The assumed deposit has been rejected
Formerly on the day, the Senthilkumar judgment rejected the anticipation proposal for bail submitted by the Minister of Namakkal Namakkal N. Sathish Kumar in the case of the damage caused by the private hospital in Namakkal during the TVK C. Joseph campaign in the district of September.
The application was rejected after the harsh opposition by a state lawyer (criminal side) S. Santhosh, who claimed that it was a serious case of crowd violence that led to damage to the private hospital and therefore no indulgence must be proven by the defendant.
Published – 3 October 2025 17:21
