CHENNAI: DMK president and former Chief Minister MK Stalin has argued before the Madras High Court that he cannot be held legally liable for individual acts or social media posts made by the party's various wings or functionaries merely because he is the party's head.

The reply was placed before the court, as Aadhav Arjuna has claimed that DMK's IT Wing published a defamatory post under the orders of party chief Stalin, seeking Rs 1 crore in damages. The court posted the matter to October 26.

When the matter came up before Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi, the court was informed that Stalin had filed his counter and that the IT Wing would also file its counter.

In his counter, Stalin said the attempt to hold him vicariously responsible for the alleged social media post was unfounded. He said that although, as the head of the party, he exercises administrative control over the office-bearers of various party wings, he could not be held legally responsible for the individual acts of the members or wings.

Stalin called upon Arjuna to prove that he had specifically instructed the party to publish the alleged information against him.

Stalin also pointed out that Arjuna, who claimed his reputation was tarnished by his association with a person under investigation, was himself facing CBI prosecution in connection with the Karur stampede case.

Stalin said the allegation that he was responsible for the publication and dissemination of the alleged post merely because he exercised control and supervision over the party was baseless and legally untenable. He said he did not instruct or approve the DMK IT Wing to publish any post linking Arjuna or his family members to John Britto or any drug-trafficking case. He denied the attempt to fasten vicarious responsibility on him and said that merely being the DMK president did not make him liable for every post published by the party's wings or functionaries, or for their individual acts.

He further said that Arjuna had not denied having a relative, John Britto, who was facing a criminal case and prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate. Stalin reiterated that he had no role whatsoever in the alleged publication.

Stalin also alleged that Arjuna had used intemperate and abusive language against him and his family during the election campaign and even after becoming a minister. He pointed out that Arjuna had referred to him as a "foolish Chief Minister" and argued that a person who had publicly used such language against him could not claim that his own reputation or goodwill had been damaged.

He further argued that Arjuna had not produced any material showing any loss of reputation, public standing, or goodwill. Stalin therefore sought dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.