A dramatic family feud has erupted within one of India's most influential media dynasties, threatening to tear apart the multi-billion rupee Sun TV Network empire. The dispute centres on two brothers whose partnership once symbolised the perfect blend of political acumen and business prowess, but now finds them locked in a bitter legal battle that has sent shockwaves through Tamil Nadu's political and corporate landscape.
The Brothers Who Built an Empire
At the centre of this high-stakes dispute are Kalanithi Maran and Dayanidhi Maran—scions of one of south India's most influential political-business families. Their public rift has laid bare not just personal differences, but deeper questions over control, succession, and governance at the sprawling Sun group whose interests span media, aviation, cable distribution and entertainment.
Kalanithi, the elder sibling, is the founder and chairman of Sun TV Network. Launched in 1993, the network quickly became a powerhouse in south Indian broadcasting, offering a diverse portfolio of regional TV channels, FM radio stations and film production under Sun Pictures. Aided by close ties to Tamil Nadu's Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party—led for decades by their grand-uncle, the late M Karunanidhi—he positioned Sun as the dominant voice in regional media.
Under his leadership, the group expanded into direct-to-home services through Sun Direct, ventured into aviation with SpiceJet and Kal Airways until 2015 Parliament, he was widely seen as and entered sports entertainment through the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Sunrisers Hyderabad. His image has been one of strategic control and disciplined execution, with a tightly held promoter structure and minimal public engagement.
Dayanidhi, the younger brother, took a different path, rising through the DMK ranks to become India's union minister for communications and information technology from 2004 to 2007. Representing Chennai central in Parliament, he was widely seen as a technocrat with political pedigree.
Though not involved in Sun TV's operational leadership, Dayanidhi was an early contributor to its founding vision and claims co-promoter status. His legal filings allege that his role and rightful stake in the company were gradually eroded through questionable share transfers and restrictive dividend practices—a core issue in the current dispute.
For years, the brothers appeared to strike a functional balance: Kalanithi focused on business expansion while Dayanidhi ascended the political ladder. Their partnership created an influential force in Tamil Nadu's power corridors, with both spheres reinforcing each other. However, the shared legacy they built—rooted in Sumangali Publications Pvt Ltd and grown into the formidable Sun group—now faces internal strain as personal grievances spill into courtrooms and boardrooms, threatening the future of one of India's most significant regional conglomerates.
The Genesis of Discord: Seeds of Conflict (2003-Present)
The origins of the Maran family conflict trace back to September 2003, a period marked by personal grief and what would later be alleged as calculated corporate restructuring. According to Dayanidhi Maran's legal filings, the dispute began when their father, Murasoli Maran—a senior DMK strategist—fell gravely ill. Dayanidhi alleges that during this vulnerable phase, Kalanithi Maran unilaterally allotted himself 12 lakh equity shares of Sun TV, amounting to a 60% stake, at a mere Rs10 per share, even though the market value ranged between Rs2,500 and Rs3,000. This allotment, allegedly executed without the consent of the original promoters, effectively diluted Dayanidhi's shareholding from 50% to just 20%.
The financial implications of these alleged manoeuvrers are staggering. Dayanidhi claims that following the controversial share allotment, Kalanidhi positioned their mother, Mallika Maran, as the legal heir of their father's shares on 26 November, 2003, even before official death and heirship certificates were obtained. This allegedly enabled further unauthorised transfers of shares to Kalanidhi in December 2005.
While tensions simmered over the years, it wasn't until 2020 that the friction re-surfaced visibly. Dayanidhi began demanding strategic say over Sun group's digital and media verticals—including Sun Direct, Sun Pictures, and Sun NXT—but Kalanithi resisted, citing his financial risk and leadership role.
The SpiceJet Catalyst: Strategic Differences Emerge
The first major crack in the Maran brothers' relationship surfaced during the turbulent period following Kalanithi Maran's acquisition of a 37% stake in SpiceJet in June 2010, later increased to over 50% through an open offer via KAL Airways. After financial struggles, Kalanithi sold his stake back to co-founder Ajay Singh in February 2015. According to media sources, Dayanidhi disagreed with both the acquisition price and the subsequent exit strategy, arguing that the sale undervalued the asset amid SpiceJet's revival efforts. These differing strategic views deepened the divide and marked a fundamental rift between the brothers' business philosophies.
Another simmering tension emerged in the Sun TV shareholding structure. Kalanithi, over time, built a dominant promoter stake, reportedly around 75%, sidelining the claims of Dayanidhi, their sister Anbukarasi, and their mother Mallika Maran. Dayanidhi increasingly felt marginalised, describing the shares as unlawfully acquired through undervalued transfers.
Escalating Tensions: From Boardroom to Courtroom (2021-2025)
From 2021 to 2023, clashes spilled into boardroom confrontations. Dayanidhi pushed for forensic audits and heightened transparency, while Kalanithi maintained that governance standards were met. The conflict reached new heights in October 2024, when a Rs500 crore payment to their sister Anbukarasi, allegedly outside formal resolution frameworks, was interpreted by Dayanidhi as a covert settlement effort.
Rumours of a vertical split gained momentum in 2024, with speculation about dividing media, digital, or aviation assets between the brothers. However, no formal agreement was announced, and talks stalled amid mounting mistrust.
The conflict reached a head on 10 June 2025, when Dayanidhi issued a comprehensive 46-page legal notice against Kalanithi, his wife Kavery, and six others. The accusations ranged from fraudulent share allotments to money laundering and corporate misgovernance, dating back two decades.
The Anatomy of Alleged Financial Manipulation
Dayanidhi's legal notice claims that Kalanidhi has received dividends amounting to Rs5,926 crore up to 2023, with an additional Rs455 crore projected for 2024. The total dividend haul allegedly reaches Rs6,300 crore from 2003 to 2024. Additionally, Kalanidhi's wife, Kaveri Maran, who serves as joint managing director of Sun TV, reportedly draws an annual salary of Rs87.5 crore.
The legal notice also highlights how dividend funds worth Rs174 crore in 2005 were allegedly used by Kalanidhi to purchase the 50% stake held by MK Dayalu, the widow of former Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi, in affiliated Sun TV companies. These transactions were allegedly misrepresented in the company's draft red herring prospectus during Sun TV's public offering in 2006.
The allegations extend beyond simple financial disputes to questions of corporate governance and regulatory compliance. Dayanidhi's legal notice claims that, despite listing a dividend payment of Rs10.64 crore to Mallika Maran in 2005 in the initial public offering (IPO) documents, no such payment was ever made. This discrepancy, he argues, amounts to deception of investors and regulators during the public offering process.
The notice also accuses Kalanidhi of enriching close associates and family members by providing them with senior executive roles across the group's various companies, including Sun TV, SpiceJet, and Sun Direct. This alleged practice of nepotism is presented as part of a broader pattern of corporate mismanagement that enabled the accumulation of vast assets across multiple business verticals.
The Sweeping Legal Demands
Dayanidhi Maran's legal demands are as comprehensive as they are specific:
• Complete restoration of Sun TV's shareholding structure to its state on 15 September 2003, effectively unwinding two decades of corporate evolution
• Return of all shareholding and dividend entitlements to the legal heirs of SN Maran and MK Dayalu
• Immediate return of all monetary benefits, dividends, assets and income allegedly unlawfully received since 2003
• Refund of Rs5,926 crore in past dividends and another Rs455 crore for 2024
• A comprehensive forensic audit of Sun TV's financials
The legal notice threatens civil, criminal and regulatory action under multiple statutes, including the Companies Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) laws, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. It specifically calls for intervention by the serious fraud investigation office (SFIO), the directorate of enforcement (ED), SEBI and the registrar of companies (RoC). The notice warns that the differential amount between the face value paid for the shares (Rs1.2 crore) and their alleged market value at the time (Rs3,500 crore) constitutes 'proceeds of crime' under money laundering laws.
Market Reaction and Corporate Response
The public disclosure of this family dispute has had immediate and tangible consequences for Sun TV's market valuation. Shares of the company fell over 4% on both the BSE and NSE following the initial reports, trading at around Rs588 before recovering slightly to Rs597.84 after the company issued a clarification statement.
Sun TV Network Limited issued an official clarification to the stock exchanges on 20 June 2025, addressing the media reports about the family dispute. The company categorically dismissed the allegations as "incorrect, misleading, speculative, defamatory and not supported by facts or law," emphasising that the alleged matters date back 22 years to when it was a closely held private limited company. The clarification stressed that all corporate actions were undertaken in accordance with legal obligations and were properly vetted by intermediaries before the company's public listing.
Most significantly, Sun TV asserted that the dispute "does not have any bearing on the business of the Company or its day-to-day functioning," characterising it as a purely personal family matter of the promoter. The company also stated it was unaware of any ongoing negotiations or settlement discussions within the promoter's family, and confirmed that no material events requiring disclosure under listing regulations had occurred that would impact the company's operations or performance.
IPL Franchise under the Shadow
As the Maran family feud spills into boardrooms and courtrooms, questions have also surfaced around the acquisition and funding of the IPL team Sunrisers Hyderabad. At the helm of the franchise is Kavya Maran, daughter of Kalanithi Maran and chief executive officer (CEO) of the team. Legal filings by Dayanidhi Maran allege that company assets—such as the IPL franchise—were launched without transparent shareholder approvals, raising red flags over governance within Sun group entities. While Kavya continues to be the public face of Sun Risers Hyderbad, the dispute casts a shadow over the ownership legacy behind one of the IPL's most prominent teams.
Political and Regulatory Implications
The Maran family's prominence in Tamil Nadu's political landscape adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. Both brothers are influential figures within the DMK party and the public nature of their conflict could have ramifications for party unity and public perception. The family's intertwined interests in politics and business have historically made internal disputes particularly sensitive and high-stakes affairs.
The Maran feud is further complicated by its unique overlay of political power and regulatory exposure. Dayanidhi Maran, a sitting member of Parliament (MP) and former Union telecom minister, has previously been linked to the 2G spectrum allocation controversies and the illegal telephone exchange case—both of which attracted significant national attention and legal scrutiny. Though acquitted in these cases, his continued political role brings a layer of media and public focus that amplifies the fallout from this family battle.
Corporate legal experts suggest that if the allegations prove true, the dispute could trigger serious regulatory scrutiny. The involvement of large sums of money and allegations of shareholding manipulation could lead to investigations by SEBI and the ministry of corporate affairs (MCA), alongside potential criminal proceedings for breach of fiduciary duties. Legal experts predict that the proceedings could be protracted and impactful, affecting not just the Maran family but the broader media landscape in Tamil Nadu.
Why This Dispute Matters: Structural Vulnerabilities Exposed
The Maran brothers' feud transcends a private family quarrel—it exposes deep-rooted structural vulnerabilities in Indian promoter-led conglomerates. The crisis unfolding within the Sun Group serves as a case study in how unresolved family dynamics can destabilize even well-established enterprises, carrying material implications for investors, regulators, and the future of family-run businesses in India.
The Succession Planning Vacuum
One of the most glaring issues exposed by this conflict is the absence of a formal succession plan within the Maran family. Kalanithi Maran, having founded and expanded Sun TV Network, assumed executive control without any public evidence of a governance framework outlining the roles, rights, or responsibilities of his siblings. Dayanidhi, despite being a co-promoter and a politically influential figure, was relegated to the sidelines—fueling resentment over not just ownership, but strategic decision-making.
This lack of structured role clarity mirrors challenges faced by other Indian family businesses where ego clashes and generational hierarchies often substitute for institutional planning. Without a clearly articulated division between executive and non-executive functions, or an agreed roadmap for generational transitions, conflicts like these become inevitable. The episode underscores the need for family constitutions that lay down succession timelines and protocols to avoid ambiguity and power struggles.
Asset Division Challenges
Unlike the Ambani family's highly publicised and legally codified vertical split between Reliance Industries' core businesses, the Marans never undertook a formal asset segregation. The Sun Group, despite its sprawling empire across television, over-the-top (OTT), aviation, cable distribution and IPL franchises, remained a tightly held promoter-driven structure without clear internal demarcation of ownership or control.
This made the group uniquely vulnerable: both brothers held indirect stakes across assets, but decision-making authority lay disproportionately with Kalanithi. Dayanidhi's legal grievances suggest he was systematically edged out of strategic calls across businesses he co-promoted. The absence of pre-negotiated exit clauses or family shareholder agreements left no institutional recourse when disagreements intensified.
Impact on Business Performance and Market Perception
While the conflict initially seemed confined to internal family matters, its impact has inevitably spilled into the broader perception of Sun group's governance and financial health. The timing of Kalanithi's SpiceJet exit in 2015 came amid intense internal disagreement, with Dayanidhi reportedly opposing the strategy and valuation. Although publicly framed as a business decision, the move now appears entangled with deeper familial discord, possibly influencing the airline's turnaround struggles.
With Kalanithi controlling over 75% of the company and minority shareholders lacking insight into intra-family governance, questions arise about transparency, related-party transactions, and future leadership continuity. The episode illustrates how family disputes—especially involving controlling shareholders—can erode market trust, depress valuations and threaten long-term strategic direction.
How This Feud Could Have Been Prevented
The Maran family dispute is emblematic of what happens when emotional ownership is not matched by institutional safeguards. Yet, the trajectory of this conflict was far from inevitable. Several well-established mechanisms in family business governance could have defused tensions or prevented them altogether.
A formal family constitution—a binding framework that outlines roles, responsibilities, succession planning, and dispute-resolution protocols among promoter family members—could have been the cornerstone of prevention. Such a constitution would have delineated boundaries between executive authority and family ownership interests, providing pre-agreed mechanisms for mediation, arbitration, or exits, reducing the need for courtroom escalation.
Independent board oversight represents another missed opportunity. Sun TV Network, despite being a publicly listed entity with a large retail and institutional investor base, operates with heavy promoter dominance. Independent directors, had they been truly empowered and active, could have flagged governance issues early, questioned questionable intra-promoter transfers, and mediated between the brothers before legal action was considered.
A structurally sound solution—employed by other Indian conglomerates like the Ambanis—is vertical segmentation of business lines. By clearly carving out Sun TV, Sun Direct and SpiceJet under separate promoter entities or leadership streams, operational control and ownership stakes could have been segregated, avoiding overlap and reducing conflict potential.
Even as Kalanithi and Dayanidhi battle over historical grievances, there appears to be no publicly visible process to prepare the next generation for leadership. A structured onboarding of the next generation into boardrooms, combined with governance mentoring and defined equity-sharing rules, could have set a precedent for transparency and transition, preventing the cycle of disputes from continuing into the next era.
Bigger Lessons for Indian Family Businesses
The Maran brothers' dispute offers more than a cautionary tale—it reflects the structural fragility and emotional complexity that often plague Indian family-run enterprises, especially as they transition from founders to second or third generations. This conflict, with its scale, visibility, and regulatory implications, encapsulates the governance gaps that continue to derail even the most successful business dynasties.
The Maran case exemplifies how founder-driven empires can unravel without succession planning and role clarity. Despite their shared legacy and mutual stake in the group's success, Kalanithi and Dayanidhi fell into the classic trap of ambiguous rights, emotional entitlement and an absence of structured generational transition.
What this dispute starkly reveals is the financial cost of poor governance. In today's markets, investors increasingly assign a premium to companies with strong, independent boards, transparent shareholding patterns and credible succession plans. Even companies with solid cash-flows and dominant market share are not immune; their long-term capital access and institutional appeal hinge on governance optics.
The Maran fallout also signals a growing need for professional family office advisers—specialists who sit at the intersection of legal, financial, emotional and structural planning. These advisers help promoter families draft constitutions, set up trusts, define exit frameworks and even mediate sensitive conversations long before they escalate into litigation. With family enterprises accounting for nearly 80% of India's GDP contribution, the role of such advisors is becoming not just optional but essential.
Looking Forward: Uncertain Outcomes and Lasting Impact
As this legal battle unfolds, the ultimate resolution remains uncertain. The one-week deadline imposed by Dayanidhi for his brother's response has passed and the lack of a public statement from Kalanidhi suggests that the dispute may be heading toward prolonged litigation. An earlier notice sent in October 2024 allegedly received only a vague response, though it reportedly resulted in a Rs500 crore payment to another sibling, Anbukarasi, as part of a private settlement.
For business families with political affiliations, the takeaway is stark: governance failures can quickly morph into public and regulatory crises, especially when political capital intersects with corporate control. What begins as a disagreement over shares can spiral into a reputational threat with broader implications for party credibility and public trust.
The case represents more than just a family feud; it challenges the governance and ownership structure of one of India's most successful regional media conglomerates. The outcome could set important precedents for corporate governance in family-controlled businesses and may influence how such disputes are handled in the future.
For now, the Maran brothers remain locked in a bitter conflict that has transformed their once-collaborative relationship into a high-stakes legal battle. The resolution of this dispute will not only determine the future control of the Sun TV empire but may also reshape the landscape of corporate governance in India's family-controlled businesses. As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will be on how this corporate drama unfolds and what it means for the future of one of south India's most influential media dynasties.
