TVK senior leader Aadhav Arjuna, who also serves as Minister for Public Works and Sports Development, directed criticism at both the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and the DMK over their respective positions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls on October 10, a few hours ahead of a planned meeting in Chennai between Rahul Gandhi and Chief Minister Joseph Vijay. Reporters put questions to Minister Aadhav Arjuna about the CJP protest unfolding in Delhi at a media briefing.
Aadhav Arjuna raised questions about the DMK's stance on the CJP's position regarding the Chief Election Commissioner and the SIR exercise, pointing out that the SIR process had been carried out while the DMK was in power and that the officials tasked with administering it had been appointed by the Stalin government. A TVK minister argued that the removal of thousands of young party supporters from voter rolls had cost the party a potential seat tally of between 160 and 170, though no independent evidence was offered to support that projection.
Aadhav Arjuna relayed a complaint that had been voiced recently — that government officials were directing their attention exclusively to secretaries affiliated with the DMK, whether at the union or branch level. He stated that the electoral roll was being directed exclusively to that particular group, and posed the question of which authority holds responsibility for filling Revenue Department posts across all 234 constituencies. He noted that the administration led by MK Stalin held responsibility for that decision.
In response to the claim that electoral defeat stemmed from the State Investigation Report, a counter-argument was put forward that the SIR had been introduced during the accused party's own tenure as Chief Minister, with its officers appointed by that same administration — a process that, it was noted, had affected approximately one crore people. Separately, actor Prakash Raj had posed a question on October 6 about the avoidance of press conferences.
A reporter posed the question of whether the treatment of the press amounted to a lack of respect toward journalists. The TVK minister asserted that elected officials — from Chief Ministers up to the Prime Minister — carry an obligation to respond to media questions put forward on the public's behalf. In remarks understood as a reference to Prakash Raj, he added that certain intellectuals were travelling from outside the area to voice their opinions locally, and directed criticism at those individuals for their conduct.
He questioned which party currently holds power in the legislature and whether those involved understood the political dynamics at play. He further characterised the conduct of the individuals in question as lacking in judgment, and urged visiting politicians to engage with Tamil Nadu's electorate through substantive policy discussion rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
Aadhav Arjuna turned his comments toward the DMK, noting that the party had governed at the state level and asking why a policy it had reportedly backed in other contexts was absent from its record in Delhi. He stated that the party's ground-level network reportedly extends to tracking the caste and religious composition of households across individual streets, and that this practice had continued across a span of 75 years. He raised questions over whether the removal of one crore names from the rolls could have taken place without the awareness of district, union, and branch secretaries at the local level.
He noted that among the approximately one crore accounts that were removed, those belonging to younger users in the Gen Z age group were included. He stated that those affected had voiced opposition to SIR through formal protest, and referenced analyst assessments suggesting TVK might have captured between 160 and 170 seats in Tamil Nadu had SIR not been a factor in the contest. A question was also raised about the DMK's decision to strip youth members of their posts across the board, with allegations surfacing that DMK took steps to exclude individuals below the age of 30 and that government officials played a role in that process.
CTR Nirmal Kumar, who holds the Law Minister portfolio and a leadership position in TVK, addressed reporters in Madurai on October 10. He questioned the appointment of certain individuals and cautioned that backing a protest organised by groups whose motives and external connections remain unclear carries its own risks, adding that the party could not extend support to an organisation he described as receiving funding from the United States. He also posed the question of whether Stalin or his son Udhaya Nidhi had, at any point during their five-year tenure, publicly spoken out against Prime Minister Modi or the BJP.
Nirmal Kumar noted that the Governor had been the sole figure drawn into the dispute, with attention directed nowhere else. He stated that at the party's inaugural conference, a resolution had been passed designating the BJP as an ideological adversary, and added that the DMK held no standing to dictate the TVK government's course of action or to direct criticism toward the Chief Minister. He conveyed that TVK's position on the SIR exercise had been one of active opposition, and that while protests were permitted, those wishing to hold one were required to seek authorisation beforehand. Enforcement of the rules, he explained, falls to police as a matter of duty — a responsibility that extends to anyone found in violation, whatever their standing.
DMK president MK Stalin contended that while Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — against whom Stalin directed accusations of betrayal — moved freely under Z-plus security protection, the central government had taken into custody former chief ministers Pinarai Vijayan, Arvind Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee, and Manik Sarkar, as well as CPM general secretary MA Baby and leaders of several student organisations who had assembled in support of voting rights. In a separate development, Chennai police took into custody DMK supporters who had gathered in protest without the authorisation required for such an assembly.
Demonstrations against the backdrop of Tamil Nadu's political landscape drew out cadres from the Congress party, the VCK, and several Left-aligned formations. At its first protest gathering in June, the organisation raised concerns about the central government's handling of the police response to students and opposition figures who had taken to the streets in Delhi over the NEET paper leak.
A statement attributed to a party claimed that Tamil Nadu had been the first state to raise opposition to NEET and that this opposition had since spread across the country. The most recent round of protests centred on demands for the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation and the annulment of all Assembly elections conducted over the preceding two years. Any such requirement would bear directly on TVK, the party that took control of the Tamil Nadu Assembly following the May elections.
The CJP's Tamil Nadu wing shows early signs of internal fracture before it has had the opportunity to consolidate its presence. Questions from within the CJP membership have been directed at Abjith's leadership, covering the absence of state-level coordinator appointments, the basis on which any such appointments would be made, and what duties those coordinators would be expected to carry out. Questions about fieldwork assignments and the organisation's stance on women's issues were also put forward. A question was raised about the value of convenor posts that carried no authority to table queries, alongside a request for transparency on how appointments to those roles in Tamil Nadu were being made.
During a student interaction in Chennai, Rahul Gandhi put forward accusations against the Central government and the Election Commission, alleging vote theft and the undermining of democratic processes, though no supporting evidence was offered at the event to back those assertions. Among the topics he took up were Tamil Nadu's positions on NEET, language policy, education funding, and constituency delimitation, alongside a call for students to hold those in authority to account.
