As there is a shortage of expected political mileage and institutional backing to fight the case, K. Annamalai, the founder of We The Leaders Foundation and DMK treasurer and Sriperumbudur DMK MP TR Baalu, as per a mutually agreed compromise, have withdrawn the defamation cases filed against each other. The cases were being heard until they were withdrawn.
The case stems from Annamalai, former BJP leader, releasing the first part of the “DMK Files” in 2023, in which he accused DMK leaders of possessing disproportionate wealth. He also released a nearly 15-minute video clip, “DMK Files (Part 1)”, showcasing the valuation of the assets. Following this, the DMK issued a legal notice to Annamalai alleging defamation for making accusations against Chief Minister MK Stalin’s family members and senior DMK ministers and leaders. Kanimozhi, Udhayanidhi Stalin and TR Baalu sent legal notices to Annamalai.
In his complaint, Baalu had stated: “Only my son, TRB Raja (who is a minister), and I are involved in politics; none of my other family members are in public life. Yet, Annamalai has alleged that we have invested crores of rupees across 21 companies. We have made only minor investments in just three of the companies he mentioned and have no connection whatsoever to the others. Annamalai has made defamatory statements against me – someone who has been in public life for over 60 years – without any evidence. Action should be initiated against Annamalai under defamation laws for releasing a list that tarnishes my reputation.”
On June 30, Annamalai said that TR Baalu had withdrawn the ₹100 crore defamation suit filed against him over the BJP leader’s “DMK Files” allegations. However, he said that he continues to stand by every claim he made against the previous DMK government and certain party leaders.
Taking to social media platform X, Annamalai said: “TR Baalu filed a defamation case against me for publishing the assets/companies owned by him and his family through DMK Files & he had sought ₹100 Crores in damages. As you all know, after a certain time period in the trial, I argued my own case and personally cross-examined him, and the details of which are in the public domain. Also, during one of the cross-examinations, TR Baalu made defamatory remarks against me without substance in the court, and I had filed a case against him in the same court for making those allegations within the court premises. Today, TR Baalu, out of his own wishes, decided to withdraw the defamation case filed against me by him. He filed the defamation case against me; to carry it further or not was his decision & not mine. I wish to inform all concerned that I continue to stand by every single remark that I had made against the previous DMK govt and certain members of the DMK party till now.”
Thiru TR Baalu filed a defamation case against me for publishing the assets/companies owned by him and his family through DMK Files & he had sought ₹100 Crores in damages.
As you all know, after a certain time period in the trial, I argued my own case and personally…
— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) June 30, 2026
The case continued for several years before reaching a crucial stage in February 2026. During the proceedings, Annamalai personally cross-examined Baalu in court, leading to a series of intense questions focused on Baalu’s assets, including allegations relating to ship purchases during his tenure as Union Shipping Minister, a family-linked distillery in Thanjavur, and vehicles and land holdings allegedly worth several crores. Baalu defended his position throughout the cross-examinations. Following the cross-examination, Annamalai filed a counter-defamation case against Baalu in March 2026.
Annamalai said: “After a certain stage in the trial, I argued the case myself and personally cross-examined Baalu,” adding that the details of the proceedings were already in the public domain.
YouTuber Savukku Shankar said: “Baalu’s counsel clearly says, ‘Annamalai’s counsel had submitted to the Hon’ble Court that he wished to not press the complaint filed by him’. Unless both the counsels make an endorsement for withdrawal, the Court would not permit withdrawal. Can you please throw some light, Annamalai?”
Mr Balu’s counsel clearly says, “K.Annamalai’s counsel had submitted to the Hon’ble Court that *he wished to not press the complaint filed by him*”.
Unless both the counsels make an endorsement for withdrawal, the Court would not permit withdrawal.
Can you please throw some… https://t.co/bZUFjzYP0f pic.twitter.com/UCH7FimxtK
— Savukku Shankar (@SavukkuOfficial) June 30, 2026
Kalyan said in a post: “Done deal I said on 27th as per the below tweet, and it is proven true now!!! How much @annamalai_k?! If Annamalai is keen on justice and also taking on TR Baalu, then he will pursue the matter and prove that it was a malicious case. But he won’t do it because of the deal!!!”
Done deal I said on 27th as per below tweet, and it is proven true now!!!
How much @annamalai_k ?!
If annamalai is keen on justice and also taking in TR Baalu, then he will pursue the matter and prove that it was malicious case.
But, he won't do it because of the deal!!! https://t.co/9KscijN94r pic.twitter.com/HUmpJs0vQN
— Kalyan Raman (மோடியின் குடும்பம்) (@KalyaanBJP_) June 30, 2026
Critics say the decision to withdraw the cases raises questions after Annamalai left the BJP and the DMK lost power. Annamalai is advancing his “We the Leaders” movement towards becoming a political party in July. He aims to enrol 50 lakh members and position the party as a people-focused alternative in Tamil Nadu, with priorities including anti-corruption measures and tackling the drug menace.
They also point out that Annamalai was represented by BJP legal wing head Paul Kanagaraj. Annamalai may not have official support or inputs to strengthen the case after his exit from the BJP. Baalu had enjoyed the support of the then DMK government, including legal assistance and other backing. However, the DMK is out of power and he may not receive the same level of support and privilege. Moreover, Annamalai may ask questions about his alleged ill-gotten wealth, which may cause public embarrassment and leave him vulnerable to political attacks, legal cases, arrest, and damage to the family’s honour.
