Supreme Court Affirms Madras HC Order Allowing EPS To Continue As AIADMK Interim General Secretary, Dismisses OPS's Challenge

In a set back to O Paneerselvam(OPS) in the cases related to AIDAMK leadership row, the Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed the order of the Madras High Court division bench which allowed Edappadi Palaniswamy(EPS) to continue as the interim general secretary of the party.

The Court has also made absolute its interim order passed on July 6, 2022 staying the Madras High Court order dated June 23, 2022, which restrained the AIADMK General Council from passing any resolutions.

A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheswari and Hrishikesh Roy had reserved judgment on January 12. Detailed judgment is yet to be uploaded.

Justice Maheshwari, while reading out the opertive portions, clarified that the Court's observations are relating to the interim orders passed by the High Court and that they shall have no bearing on the suit pending in the High Court in relation to the disputes between OPS and EPS. The Court has left all the other issues open to be decided in the suit. The Court further clarified that it has not dealt with the contentions regarding the validity of the general council meeting of July 11, 2022, which is to be decided in the suit.

The Court dismissed the petitions filed by OPS against the September 2, 2022 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.

OPS's lawyers, Senior Advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, argued for restoration of the single bench's order by contending that it was passed in accordance with the bye-laws of the party, which mandate joint consent of OPS & EPS for convening general council meetings.

For EPS, Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Mukul Rohatgi, and Atul Yeshwant Chitale, argued that the High Court cannot interfere with the internal decisions of a political party which have been taken in a general council meeting.

Case : Thiru K Palaniswamy vs M Shanmugham and others

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133

For Appellant(s) Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv. Mr. C Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijay Narayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. K Gowtham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shiva Krishnamurti, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Devamshu Behl, Adv. Mrs. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Balamurugan, Adv. Mr. Babu Murugavel, Adv. Mr. Inbadurai, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Goel, Adv. Mr. Prabhu V, Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Gowtham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prateek Dhankhar, Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. C Aryama Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Yeshwanth Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vijay Narayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. K Gowtham Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shiva Krishnamurti, Adv. Ms. Gauri Pasricha, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Devamshu Behl, Adv. Mrs. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv. Mr. Balamurugan, Adv. Mr. Babu Murugavel, Adv. Mr. Prabhu V, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Goel, Adv. Mr. Inbadurai, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi, Adv. Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. A.t. Nagendran, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Rohit R. Saboo, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, AOR Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, AOR Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Sibi Kargil, Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Mr. Surya Narayan Patro, Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. V.N.Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Mr. V.M.Eashwar, Adv.

AIADMK Rift- Supreme Court affirms Madras HC division bench order allowing Edappadi Palaniswamy to continue as interim general secretary of AIADMK- the approach of the learned Single Judge while examining the questions of balance of convenience and irreparable injury had been from an altogether wrong angle- the learned Single Judge in the present matter did not examine the questions relating to balance of convenience and irreparable injury in the correct perspective and particularly failed to weigh the competing possibilities and risk of injustice if ultimately the decision of main matter would run counter to the course being adopted and suggested in the order granting temporary injunction in the manner and form it was being granted

Grant of temporary injunction - principles and precedents discussed- Para 21

Click here to read the judgment