Begin typing your search...

    Maran objects to Palaniswami’s discharge petition in defamation case

    The AIADMK leader was well aware of the legal aspects and issues, and filed the plea only to drag the proceeding, alleged Dayanidhi

    Maran objects to Palaniswami’s discharge petition in defamation case
    X

    Dayanidhi Maran; Edappadi K Palaniswami 

    CHENNAI: The discharge petition filed by opposition leader and AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami seeking to be discharged from the defamation suit he filed should not be entertained, said DMK leader and Lok Sabha member Dayanidhi Maran.

    During a public meeting, Palaniswami had alleged that Central Chennai MP Dayanidhi failed to utilise even 75 per cent of the constituency funds allocated for the development of the constituency. The AIADMK leader had also alleged that Dayanidhi’s sole motive was to expand his assets and that of his family.

    Alleging that these statements did not have an iota of truth and caused him severe loss of reputation and anguish, Dayanidhi moved a defamation petition. Countering this, Palaniswami filed a petition seeking to discharge him from the case.

    In his submission before the special court constituted to hear the cases related to MPs and MLAs, Dayanidhi said the court had already completed the procedure and proceeded to take evidence under Section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Hence, the discharge petition should not be entertained, he argued.

    In his submission, Dayanidhi also pointed out that the discharge petition was filed under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which came into existence in July while the defamation case was filed in April. Hence, the defamation petition was out of the new Act’s scope, he contended.

    Despite being fully aware of the legal aspects and issues, Palaniswami deliberately filed the discharge petition to prolong the present legal proceedings, added Dayanidhi, and sought a direction to dismiss the petition.

    After taking note of the contentions, the court adjourned the case to December to consider Palaniswami’s submissions.

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story