Madras High Court Stays ECI Proceedings In Connection With AIADMK Party Leadership, Says Election Commission Cannot Act Like This

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice C Kumarappan passed the interim orders on a plea by AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami seeking to forbear the ECI from conducting quasi-judicial proceedings into the party's leadership dispute based on the representations made by Mr. Ravindranath, Mr Palanisamy, Mur. Pugazhendi, B Ramkumar Adityan, P Gandhi and MG Ramachandran.

“Looking back into the representation that you made earlier, we don't think it was Bonafide. The ECI cannot act like this. The counsels should be at least fair to the court,” the court orally remarked while staying the ECI proceedings.

Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing for Edappadi informed the court that in December 2024, a division bench of the court, led by Justice Subramanian had disposed of a plea filed by one S Surya Moorthi to direct the ECI to consider his representation for freezing the two-leaf symbol of ADMK. While disposing of the petition, the court had recorded the ECI's submission that it would take a decision on the representation within 4 weeks.

Sundaram argued that after the orders of the High Court, the ECI has however ventured into a quasi-judicial proceedings regarding the leadership rift in the party which is a subject matter pending before the High Court. Sundaram took the court through the history of the leadership row and argued that the ECI did not have jurisdiction to decide the intra-party dispute. He also pointed out that the ECI had been issuing notices to the petitioners in every representation made by individuals, who have been expelled from the party. He argued that ECI could only perform ministerial acts which it was empowered to do under law and could not conduct quasi-judicial proceedings as in the present case.

Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal, Standing Counsel for the ECI, questioned the maintainability of the plea and argued that a prohibition could not be sought against the ECI. He also pointed out that the petition was filed on a wring understanding and that the ECI would not venture into areas where it had no jurisdiction.

The court however made it clear that while disposing of Surya Moorthi's petition, it had not given the ECI any authority to decide the issue of leadership but had only recorded the submission of the ECI that it would consider the representation. The court orally remarked that considering the ongoing issue, it appeared that the ECI's representation in the previous case was not genuine and added that the ECI could not act like this.

Case Title: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v The Election Commission of India and Others

Case No: WP 252 of 2025