AIADMK Leadership Rift : Supreme Court Reserves Judgement In O Paneerselvam's Plea

A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheswari and Hrishikesh Roy asked all the parties to their written submissions by January 16.

The batch of pleas includes OPS's plea challenging the Madras High Court's direction which allowed Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) to continue as the party's interim General Secretary.

OPS approached the Supreme Court against the September 2 order passed by a division bench of the Madras High Court which reversed a single bench order for maintaining status quo concerning the AIADMK leadership as it existed before the election of Edappadi Palanisamy as the interim General Secretary of the party on July 11. The single bench had observed that as per bye-laws, the general council meetings can be convened only with the joint consent of both OPS and ESP. However, the division bench set aside the interim order for status quo after observing that it will lead to a "functional deadlock" as there was no possibility of OPS and EPS acting jointly.

The crux of the case boils down to a general council meeting of the party on July 11, last year. In that meeting, the AIADMK executive council appointed former Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) as interim General Secretary of the party and expelled O. Panneerselvam (OPS) from the party on account of "anti-party activities".

Senior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and Mr. Ranjit Kumar appeared for the petitioners.

Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Mukul Rohatgi, and Atul Yeshwant Chitale along with Advocates Balaji Srinivasan, Gowtham Kumar, and Shiva Krishnamurthi appeared for the respondents

What the Petitioners argued

Kumar submitted that the division bench shouldn't have interfered with the single judge's order when no illegality was found. The party's byelaws mandate joint consent for general council meetings and the division bench cannot alter the said condition citing the ground of functional difficulty.

He argued that the July 11 meeting of the General Council was improper. No formal notice was issued fifteen days prior to the date and it was not signed by the two coordinators. Kumar told the Court that it should first consider whether the action of holding or convening a meeting was authorized and whether it was in alignment with the Party's rules/regulations.

What the Respondents argued

The Respondent's side made arguments over two days. Vaidyanathan submitted that the petitioners' arguments are mere rehash of the arguments advanced before the High Court and are mainly focused on certain errors in the interpretation of the AIADMK party constitution and whether the High Court was right in its approach. Nothing perverse, no substantial question of law, and no manifest injustice has been pointed out, he said.

"GC passed a resolution. What is being disputed is the validity of the meeting of the resolution. The notice - since not written notice, the number of 15 days criteria is not met and it is not issued by a competent authority. That's the only case made out."

Since these are related to the internal management of an association, it is well-settled that the Courts do not interfere in such matters.

"When there's no perversity, this court would not deal with an issue like this", he said.

"If you say that the general body meeting convened on June 23, 2022, is valid, is it correct to fix the date for the next general body meeting on that day?", the Bench asked.

The petitioners, Vaidyanathan said, can never contend that the announcement of the July 11 meeting was not made by the Presidium Chairman at the meeting on June 26, and the communication dated July 1 is merely an invitation to the agenda.

"The plaintiffs were personally present at the meeting of 23.06.2022. No other General Council member has complained of any violation of the AIADMK party constitution or of them not having notice."

Prima facie, he stated, it is irrefutable that the General Council is the ultimate authority to add or delete any part of the (party's) Constitution and that it has the power to create or abolish a post. That's not disputed, he said.

On the aspect of three tests for an ad-interim injunction: prima facie case, balance on convenience, and irreparable prejudice, in a democracy such a party have to be vibrant and functioning, he said. "It appears that an attempt is made to make the party dysfunctional. All three tests are in favor of discretion exercised by the High Court and it is not a case for the Supreme Court to hear."

He also stated that notice for the July 11 meeting was issued by Presidium Chairman.

Sundaram stated that the general council is the supreme body of the party that takes all decisions including amending all the bye-laws.

"Was the notice sufficient? It cannot be the foundation to strike down action taken by the party at the interim stage. For a prima facie case, it has to be shown that General Council did not have the power to convene the meeting or that the meeting was vitiated by something so malafide or something against good conscience was done at that meeting", he argued.

Relying on rule 5 (7) of the Constitution, it was argued that the decision of the general council would be final concerning party matters and only those who abide by this would be considered members.

"Primary members agree to this, if 1.5 crores of people should be consulted for everything, nothing will happen - it will be chaos", he said.

Giving details, Sundaram said that there are 2,665 General Council members. The agenda was signed by 2,432 members and a total of 2,460 were present. Also, the July 11 resolution was unanimously passed.

"..it would constitute 95.34% and we have two aggrieved plaintiffs. For a requisition, only 20% of the members are needed. The entire party wants to do something, two plaintiffs want to do something different", Sundaram argued.

He also said that byelaws do not specify that a written notice must be served to the General council members to intimate regarding a meeting.

"Did they (petitioners) get notice of the meeting? Bye-law doesn't say that a written notice is essential. The plaintiffs accept that they had notice. They were even present on June 23. Can a party who is aware of the state of affairs argue that form was not followed in intimating him of the meeting especially when there's nothing on rules?", he asked rhetorically.

Adding on, he said that "form cannot prevail over substance", especially when there's no specification regarding the mode of notice.

"Keeping in mind the golden rule of purposive interpretation, the Division Bench has held that the requirement of notice is complied with", he said.

When Rohatgi came to argue, the Bench made an observation - His (OPS) expulsion was not a part of the agenda item on July 11.

Rules do not say matters outside the agenda can't be taken up for consideration in a GC meeting. If the members of the General Council agree, then it can be done, he replied.

Case Title: Thiru K. Palaniswamy Versus M. Shanmugam & Ors

Case Number: SLP (C) No(s).11237/2022