Today's Paper Archive Classifieds Subscriptions RSS Feeds Site Map ePaper Mobile Apps Social

News » National

Updated: February 7, 2011 02:55 IST

Karunanidhi serves legal notice on Swamy

Share  ·   print   ·  
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi . Photo: V. Ganesan
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi . Photo: V. Ganesan

Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi has served a legal notice on Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy threatening to launch civil and criminal defamation proceedings against him, if he failed to retract his statement alleging Mr. Karunanidhi's involvement in the 2G spectrum scam.

In the notice issued on behalf of their client, the legal firm Raman and Associates said Dr. Swamy's press statement that the alleged spectrum scam also concerned national security and that the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was involved was motivated by “personal malice, political rivalry and clamour for cheap publicity”.

While categorically denying the involvement of Mr. Karunanidhi in the scam, the notice said the statement constituted wilful and malicious defamation of character of a person who has been in public service for over 70 years, a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for over 50 years, the Chief Minister of the State on five occasions and was an acknowledged elder statesman in Indian politics. “You are hereby called upon to forthwith issue a public retraction of the above statement within 24 hours, failing which our client will be constrained to institute appropriate civil and/or criminal proceedings against you for defamation of character…,” the notice said.

Meanwhile, approached by mediapersons for his reaction, Dr. Swamy said his remarks constituted “a privileged statement made in court… and repeated to the media.” There is no question of initiating legal action against the statement, he said.


Andhra Pradesh


Tamil Nadu

The HIndu's in-depth coverage of agriculture



Recent Article in National

SC frowns on reversing trial court acquittals

Unless the rulings are palpably wrong, interference by appellate court not justified »