NTK’s ‘Saattai’ Duraimurugan moves Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail

CHENNAI Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) office-bearer A. Duraimurugan alias ‘Saattai’ Duraimurugan has approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case booked against him by the Chennai cyber crime wing for having posted a defamatory video against Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and Minister for Public Works and Sports Development Aadhav Arjuna. The plea has been listed for hearing before Justice N.

Ramesh on Thursday (October 29, 2026). The First Information Report (FIR) had been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) cadre A. Christopher, a fisherman by profession, of Tondiarpet, in Chennai, on October 3, 2026. The complaint was related to a specific YouTube video uploaded on September 30, 2026. The complainant said, the NTK office-bearer, also an YouTuber, had made derogatory remarks against the Minister for having addressed him as his younger brother.

Further, the advance bail petitioner had made unsubstantiated allegations against the ruling government and accused it of having done nothing during its “honeymoon period” of 143 days since it assumed power in the State. On the other hand, the petitioner dubbed the allegations made against him in the complaint as false and politically motivated. He said, the FIR had been registered to curb the freedom of speech and expression and scuttle democratic dissent.

He contended that his YouTube video contained only a decent political constructive cricitism against the State government in the interest of people at large. “As a political leader, the petitioner has a duty towards the welfare of the people of Tamil Nadu,” Mr. Duraimurugan said and accused the TVK cadre of having lodged a complaint against him without any locus standi. He claimed that the FIR had been registered with the intention of removing the contentious YouTube video from social media platforms since it damages the image of the ruling party.

Claiming that the case does not require his custodial interrogation and that he had already appeared for police inquiry, the petitioner said, he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and appear for inquiries in the future too. EOM