Madras High Court Asks State Police Not To File Final Report Against TVK's Aadhav Arjuna Till Next Hearing In FIR Over Social Media Post

The Madras High Court, on Wednesday, asked the Tamil Nadu police not to file a final report against Aadhav Arjuna, General Secretary of Election Campaign Movement of the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) party, till Friday. 

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira was hearing a petition filed by Arjuna seeking to quash an FIR filed against him for allegedly inciting violence.

It may be noted that the FIR was registered against Arjuna for offences under Sections 192 [wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot], 196(1)(b) [promoting enmity between different groups], 197(1)(d) ]imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integrity], 353(1)(b), and 353 (2) [statements conducing to public mischief] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS 2023. The FIR was registered against Arjuna for a post made by him in which he had stated that a revolution similar to that initiated by the Gen Z in Nepal and Srilanka would occur in the State, against the authorities.

In his plea Arjuna stated that the social media comments of a political person, calling for regime change, should not be seen in isolation and must be understood in the context of the upcoming assembly elections in 2026. He added that he had made references to the riots in Nepal and Sri Lanka, only to show that the political leaders were appointees of the public and must be accountable and answerable to the public. He thus stated that the post was a strong expression of anger to the brutal police violence meted out to the party cadres, and the intent was to peacefully express dissent through casting a vote in the upcoming election.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Arjuna, argued on the points of principles of free speech expressing anguish, constitutional right to disagree, and inferable mens rea. 

Sighvi argued that the alleged post was made at 11:30 pm on September 28, 2025, and was deleted within 34 minutes. He argued that for attracting the offences, there should be incitement. He argued that in the present case, the posts were deleted before viewership was built. He thus argued that there was no intent to create incendiary.

"The idea should be to incite and create a youth revolution. But here post was deleted before viewership was built. The intent to create an incendiary situation could not be there due to the very fact of deletion," Singhvi argued. 

Sighvi argued that the posts were made to criticise the poor performance of the state police in handling the Karur stampede tragedy, and there was no ulterior motive to cause any violence. He submitted that the posts were made out of frustration and it was not accompanied by any acts. Singhvi also argued that Arjuna was not a hardcore criminal to give a call for an uprising. 

Singhvi also submitted that the FIR, in the present case, was registered without conducting any preliminary inquiry as mandated by law.  

On the other hand, Senior Advocate NR Elango, appearing for the Police, argued that the mere deletion of the post would not absolve Arjuna from the offences. He pointed out that even though the post was deleted, it had been viewed by around one lakh people. 

Elango also submitted that Arjuna, even after being in charge of the party functions, had fled the scene after the tragedy and had resurfaced online to make the posts. It was argued that when such posts were made, it was the duty of the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. He also submitted that there were no consequences to Arjuna's posts, since the police had intervened promptly. 

With respect to preliminary inquiry, Elango submitted that, as per the rulings of the Supreme Court, it was not mandatory to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR when the authority was prima facie satisfied based on the complaint.

The court, after hearing the parties, adjourned the case to Friday. Meanwhile, the court asked the police not to file the final report in the case. 

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for Gohil Agarwal Law Chamber, Dixita Gohil, Pranjal Agarwal, Yash S Vijay, Pranav Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for respondents: Senior Advocate NR Elango, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Tilak

Case Title: Aadhav Arjuna v. State

Case No: Crl OP 28737 of 2025