Madras High Court orders Udhayanidhi Stalin’s release after questioning

Published 4 August 2026 · local

The anxiety over the arrest of the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) came to an end within a

The anxiety over the arrest of the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin on Tuesday (August 4, 2026) came to an end within a few hours in the afternoon after Advocate General (A-G) Vijay Narayan informed the Madras High Court that the Thanjavur police do not intend to remand him in judicial custody. Appearing before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, the A-G said, though the police had arrested Mr. Udhayanidhi and taken him to Thanjavur, he would be let out on station bail after being questioned in connection with an “objectionable remark” which he had made during a public speech in Thanjavur on Monday. The judge recorded the A-G’s submission and disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed by the LoP with a direction to the police to release him on station bail by the end of the day.

The judge directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear for inquiry whenever he gets summoned. The Thanjavur Town East police had arrested Mr. Udhayanidhi from his residence in Chennai pursuant to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) on Monday on the basis of a complaint lodged by the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) women’s wing office-bearer Bairavi Sankar. According to the complainant, the Leader of the Opposition had made a highly derogatory and lewd remark in reference to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and a film actor while delivering a public speech after a demonstration organised by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in connection with Cauvery water issue in Thanjavur.

Hence, the police had registered the FIR for the offences under Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman), 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 296b (uttering obscene words in a public place), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The police had also invoked Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 67 of the Infomation Technology Act, 2000 since the complainant had claimed that a video clip of the speech was shared by the DMK IT wing on its social media accounts.

The FIR had been booked against the DMK IT wing office-bearers too. However, in his advance bail plea, Mr. Udhayanidhi denied having made a derogatory or indecent statement against any person or that he used any word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of any woman. He claimed an out of context interpretation had been given to his speech for political purposes.