On Thursday, the Madras High Court granted a temporary two-week injunction that prohibits Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin from making defamatory allegations against All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS).

Justice RN Manjula clarified that this injunction specifically applies to statements that are defamatory or damaging and are related to linking EPS to the Kodanad murder case or making unverified claims of corruption against him.

During the court proceedings, a defamation lawsuit was presented by EPS, represented by Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan. In this lawsuit, EPS requested the court to prevent Stalin from associating his name with the 2017 Kodanad murder case and from making accusations of corruption against him.
EPS initiated the lawsuit against Stalin, seeking damages amounting to ₹1.1 crores. These allegations were in response to statements made and posted by the minister on a social media platform, formerly known as Twitter but referred to as platform X, on September 7. The statements were made in the aftermath of the controversy surrounding Stalin's speech on Sanatana Dharma.

Narayan informed the Court that all the allegations made by Stalin against EPS were unsupported by evidence and had significantly harmed his reputation. He further noted that Stalin had posted such comments on his account on platform X, which were subsequently viewed by a large number of people, amounting to lakhs.

“Since the said defamatory content has been made in a written form and shared in social media, I think the plaintiff (EPS) has made a prima facie case. It will no doubt affect the plaintiff's reputation. And in the present case, the balance of convenience now seems to be in favor of the plaintiff. Since allowing the defendant (Stalin) to continue making defamatory statements against the plaintiff will be damaging, an interim order of injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is made for two weeks.” Justice Manjula said while acknowledging that EPS had presented a strong initial case for the granting of an interim injunction.