The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed that DMK leader and former Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin be released on the same day after questioning, following his detention over controversial remarks allegedly made during a public rally in Tamil Nadu.

The Tamil Nadu government informed the High Court that it had no intention of keeping Udhayanidhi in custody and that he would be granted station bail after the required questioning.

The development came hours after police detained the senior DMK leader in connection with a case registered over comments allegedly referring to actor Trisha Krishnan, which sparked political outrage and protests across the state.

Government Assures Court of Release

During the hearing before Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the detention was temporary and that the State would release Udhayanidhi after questioning.

The Advocate General told the court that the police action had been taken in the interest of women and clarified that there was no proposal to keep the DMK leader in judicial custody.

Accepting the submission, the court directed that he be released on station bail after the inquiry.

Controversy Over Rally Remarks

The controversy began during a rally on the Cauvery water dispute in Thanjavur on Monday.

While addressing the gathering and criticising Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, sections of the crowd reportedly chanted the name of actor Trisha.

According to the complaint, Udhayanidhi responded by saying, "Whether the water reaches elsewhere or not, it must definitely reach there."

Opposition parties alleged that the statement carried a double meaning and amounted to an insult to women.

Udhayanidhi, however, maintained that he was referring only to the waters of the Cauvery River and rejected the allegations of making an objectionable remark.

Case Registered Under Multiple Laws

Police registered a case against the DMK leader under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, and the Information Technology Act.

Following the registration of the FIR, Udhayanidhi had also approached the Madras High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

He was taken into custody by the Thanjavur East Police before being transported towards Thanjavur for questioning.

Political Reactions Intensify

The detention triggered sharp political reactions across Tamil Nadu.

Several DMK workers staged protests outside Udhayanidhi's residence and the Madras High Court, while some demonstrations reportedly turned violent, with protesters burning effigies and raising slogans against the police.

Senior DMK leaders defended Udhayanidhi, alleging that the controversy was being deliberately politicised to divert attention from the Cauvery water dispute and issues affecting farmers.

The party also claimed that the police action was politically motivated.

Opposition Demands Action

Leaders from opposition parties, including the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other political outfits, criticised Udhayanidhi's remarks.

Several leaders described the alleged comments as inappropriate and offensive to women, while BJP leaders demanded an unconditional public apology and strict legal action.

The controversy has also revived public discussion surrounding long-standing speculation linking actor Trisha Krishnanand actor-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay, although neither has ever publicly commented on such reports.

Issue Likely to Continue

Although the High Court's intervention ensured Udhayanidhi's release after questioning, the legal proceedings in the case will continue.

With both the ruling DMK and Opposition parties hardening their positions, the controversy is expected to remain a major political issue in Tamil Nadu in the coming days.

In a significant order invoking its extraordinary powers, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing the couple’s subsequent marriage and the victim’s own request to quash the case.

The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar used its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction and sentence, observing that the parties are now married and living together as husband and wife. The court emphasised that allowing them to lead a peaceful life was appropriate in the special circumstances of the case.

Special Circumstances Cited

The apex court noted that the victim, after attaining adulthood, had married the accused and approached the Supreme Court herself seeking to have his conviction and sentence set aside. The man had also paid ₹10 lakh as compensation to her. 

“Looking at the special circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to use our broad powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to overturn the appellant’s conviction and sentence,” the bench stated. The accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act.

Background of the Case

The incident dates back to 2018 when the victim was a minor. According to the case details, she had been in a relationship with the accused. A trial court in 2019 sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for offences under the POCSO Act involving physical relations with a minor.

The victim later married another man, but her husband abandoned her shortly after details of her past relationship surfaced. Following his release on bail, the accused reconnected with the victim. The two reconciled and solemnised their marriage in 2024.

High Court Proceedings

After the marriage, the woman moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the proceedings and the sentence against her husband. While the High Court suspended the sentence, it rejected the plea to quash the conviction in 2021. The couple then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.

Victim’s Appeal Key to Ruling

Sources familiar with the matter said the victim’s consistent stand and her willingness to continue the relationship played a crucial role in the apex court’s decision. The court took into account that the couple had settled their differences and were leading a married life.

This development comes at a time when the judiciary has occasionally used Article 142 to do complete justice in cases involving unique humanitarian considerations, even as POCSO cases generally attract strict interpretation to protect minors.

Legal Experts React

Legal observers noted that while such orders are passed in exceptional situations, they do not dilute the overall protective intent of the POCSO Act. “Each case turns on its own facts,” one senior advocate remarked, requesting anonymity. “Here, the victim’s agency as an adult and the subsequent marriage appear to have weighed with the court.”

The ruling has drawn mixed reactions on social media, with some welcoming the pragmatic approach while others expressed concern over its implications for similar cases involving minors.

What Lies Ahead

With the conviction quashed, the couple can now move forward without legal overhang. The order is expected to bring closure to a case that has spanned several years across trial and appellate courts.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter once again highlights the tension between the stringent provisions of protective laws and the realities of individual lives, especially when the primary stakeholder—the victim—seeks reconciliation.