The State government has filed a defamation suit against MDMK general secretary Vaiko for his reported remarks on  Chief Minister M Karunanidhi in connection with an attack on the office of film director Bharathi Raja.

The case, filed by the City Public Prosecutor in the Principal Sessions Court on behalf of the State government, charged Vaiko with making defamatory remarks arising out  of ‘jealousy, political ill- will and hatred’.

Vaiko had intentionally and maliciously indulged in mud- slinging with a view to tarnishing the ‘well- founded image’ of the Chief Minister and bringing disrepute to him.

The MDMK leader was well aware that after the incident, proper legal action had been initiated and an investigation had commenced, the complainant said.

The remarks holding the Chief Minister responsible for the attack was published in the 31 May edition of a Tamil daily, the complaint said, and sought to proceed against Vaiko under IPC Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation).

It may be recalled that Tamilnadu Electricity Minister Arcot N Veerasamy during  June had filed a defamation suit on behalf of Karunanidhi against Vaiko for making derogatory remarks and accusing the Chief Minister of having a hand in the attack on film director Bharathiraja’s office.

‘Vaiko’s speech was mala fide, with the intention of defaming the Chief Minister, and a crime under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. Hence, we have filed a defamation suit against the MDMK general secretary asking the court to suitably punish him,’ Arcot Veerasamy said.

Karunanidhi had also sent a legal notice to the MDMK leader on 1 June, asking him to tender an unconditional apology within 24 hours or face legal action. Karunanidhi’s advocate A Saravanan said Vaiko’s statement was ‘inappropriate, made in bad taste and solely intended to harm the Chief Minister’s reputation’.

Saravanan said that Vaiko had levelled such accusations because his party had fared poorly in the recent general elections. ‘Before making such statements, you should have verified the veracity of the accusation. The statement was not based on any truth, which the public good requires,’ the advocate said in his legal notice.