Arappor Iyakkam had accused the then AIADMK government of causing a ₹692 crore loss to the state through irregular highway tenders.
Published Nov 19, 2024 | 9:58 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 19, 2024 | 9:58 PM
Edappadi K Palaniswami. (File pic/EPSTamilnadu/Facebook)
AIADMK General Secretary and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Edappadi K Palaniswami appeared before the Madras High Court on Tuesday, 19 November, concerning a defamation case.
The former CM had filed a defamation case against Arappor Iyakkam, an NGO based in Chennai over its comments on alleged tender irregularities in the Tamil Nadu Highways Department during Edappadi’s tenure as CM (2016–2021).
On Tuesday, EPS testified before Justice Mahalakshmi and presented his arguments, after which the court adjourned the case to 11 December.
Arappor Iyakkam had accused the then AIADMK government of causing a ₹692 crore loss to the state through irregular highway tenders in Thanjavur, Sivagangai, and Coimbatore districts. It alleged that roads that were already in good condition were unnecessarily relayed, leading to financial mismanagement.
EPS had approached Madras High Court claiming that such accusations caused him mental distress. Accusing Arappor Iyakkam of deliberately tarnishing his reputation, he filed a ₹1.10 crore defamation suit against Arappor Iyakkam’s convener and assistant convener – Jayaram Venkatesan and Zakir Hussain.
Acting on it, the Madras High Court imposed an interim injunction in December 2022 preventing Arappor Iyakkam from making defamatory statements against the AIADMK leader.
Notably, in July this year, Arappor Iyakkam lodged complaints with the Chief Secretary of the Highways Department, and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) over the alleged irregularities.
Speaking to the media personnel after the hearing, EPS’s legal counsel said, “Claims of tender irregularities have been dismissed even by the Supreme Court. Today, Palaniswami has presented his evidence but Arappor Iyakkam has not yet presented any substantial argument in court.”
(Edited by Neena with inputs from Nitika K Shivani)
