Madras High Court Agrees to Urgently Hear

Udhayanidhi Stalin's Anticipatory Bail Plea Amid Trisha Remark Row

Report By Y-Trendz

The Madras High Court on Tuesday agreed to take up on an urgent basis the anticipatory bail plea filed by Tamil Nadu's Leader of Opposition and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin, after he was arrested by

Thanjavur police over an allegedly derogatory remark made during a public rally, in a case that has since triggered political turmoil across Tamil Nadu.

The Controversy

The case traces back to a rally in Thanjavur on Monday, where Udhayanidhi, while addressing the Cauvery water dispute, made a comment that was widely perceived as a double entendre. The remark seemingly referred to actor Trisha and drew sharp criticism, with leaders from the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and the BJP calling it "disgusting, obscene, vulgar and shameful" and demanding his arrest.

Acting on the complaint, the Thanjavur Town East police registered a case against Udhayanidhi. He was booked under Sections 61, 79, 192, 196, 296(b), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

The Arrest and Urgent Hearing

Anticipating arrest, Udhayanidhi's legal team moved the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The court orally directed the prosecutor to instruct police not to take any action until the anticipatory bail plea was heard — but the arrest was made around 11 am regardless, with Udhayanidhi picked up from his residence.

Given the volatile political situation and the urgency of the matter, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan of the Madras High Court took up the case and heard arguments from both the opposition DMK's counsel and Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government. The petitioner's case was argued by a battery of senior counsel, including Senior Advocates NR Elango, Hasan Mohammed Jinnah and J Ravindra.

In his plea before the court, Udhayanidhi argued that he had not made any derogatory or indecent statement against any person and had not used any word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of any woman, submitting that the meaning being attributed to his speech stemmed from interpretations circulating among unknown persons on social media. He further contended that the case was politically motivated and intended to silence him in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, having been filed shortly before the budget session of the state assembly in an apparent attempt to keep him away from the House during the session.

Speaking to reporters after being taken into custody, Udhayanidhi denied the allegations outright. He alleged that a "fake narrative" had been created through circulation of edited clips of his speech, saying his opponents had used "cut, copy, paste" tactics to attribute statements to him that he never made, and asserted he was not the kind of person who could be intimidated.

Court's Approach and Outcome

During the hearing, the court took note of a procedural complication: since Udhayanidhi had already been arrested by the time the matter came up, the anticipatory bail petition might technically no longer be maintainable. However, the court also observed that it retained the power to grant bail itself after considering the relevant material.

The situation was resolved when the state signalled it did not intend to press for custody. Noting that the State did not intend to remand Udhayanidhi, the court refrained from delving into the merits of the case. Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the bench that Udhayanidhi had already been arrested but would be released on station bail after questioning, explaining that the arrest itself had been made "in the interest of women."

Following this submission, Justice Ilanthiraiyan disposed of the anticipatory bail petition with a direction to police to release Udhayanidhi on station bail by the end of the day, while also directing the Leader of Opposition to cooperate with the investigation and appear for inquiry whenever summoned.

Political Fallout

The episode unfolded against a backdrop of intense political pressure. Amid protests across Tamil Nadu and significant backlash from its own alliance partners, the DMK government's counsel submitted before the court that Thanjavur police did not intend to seek Udhayanidhi's judicial custody, paving the way for the High Court's release order.

DMK leaders rallied to Udhayanidhi's defence even as the controversy raged. Party MP T.R. Baalu dismissed the allegations, asserting that Udhayanidhi had not referred to any specific individual and calling the charges entirely false. Meanwhile, TVK spokespersons continued to press the attack, with the party's leadership branding the remarks unacceptable and demanding accountability.

The case adds to a string of legal challenges Udhayanidhi has faced in recent years, including separate proceedings before the Supreme Court and Madras High Court over his past remarks on Sanatana Dharma. As Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, he remains one of the most closely watched — and legally contested — figures in the state's current political landscape.