Gudiyatham Municipal Council chair Soundarrajan is facing controversy after an audio recording in which he allegedly threatened environmental activist Srikanth began circulating on social media, according to a report published by Dinamalar on October 25.
Srikanth, 36, is from the Ullि panchayat area in Vellore district and is identified in the report as an environmental activist. The reported dispute is linked to a tree-planting programme held on October 9 along the banks of the Goundanya Mahanadi in Gudiyatham.
The programme was organised jointly by the Gudiyatham municipality and the Rotary organisation. Sindhu Alagappan, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam MLA from Gudiyatham, and others attended the event, according to the report. Srikanth subsequently referred to the programme in a post on his Facebook page.
The report said that Soundarrajan’s name was omitted from the post, which reportedly led to a confrontation at the municipal office. During the exchange, the municipal chair is alleged to have reprimanded Srikanth and issued threats over a mobile-phone call. An audio recording of the alleged conversation later spread on social media and triggered controversy.
The account also contains an allegation that Soundarrajan objected to Sindhu Alagappan being invited to the tree-planting programme and used derogatory language while expressing his opposition. The report does not provide a response from Soundarrajan, the Gudiyatham municipality, Srikanth or the MLA to the allegations.
The episode places a civic environmental programme at the centre of a dispute involving an elected municipal representative, an activist and a legislator. Tree planting along a riverbank is a public-facing municipal activity, and the reported disagreement has drawn attention not only because of the alleged audio threat but also because of questions over how civic officials respond to public commentary and participation in municipal events.
The recording’s circulation has made the alleged exchange a matter of public discussion, but the supplied report does not establish whether the audio has been independently authenticated or whether a police complaint, departmental inquiry or formal municipal action has been initiated. It also does not detail the precise contents of the alleged threats.
The next official step, if any, would determine whether the municipality, law-enforcement authorities or other public institutions formally examine the allegations and the audio recording.
