AIADMK Headquarters Sealing: Madras High Court Directs State To File Report, Video Of Alleged Clashes

The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar was hearing the pleas filed by former Chief Minister O Paneerselvam and the new incumbent General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswamy challenging the lock and seal of the party headquarters.

In his affidavit, Paneerselvam contends that they received the order of the RDO/Sub Divisional Magistrate while they were still in charge and in possession of the Party building. It is alleged that they were asked to vacate the premises and were informed that an enquiry under Section 145 CrPC was underway. A case was also registered against the rioters and a copy of the FIR was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate along with the key of the additional lock put on the party headquarters by the police. 

It was further contended that the RDO/Sub-divisional Magistrate had not given sufficient grounds for him being satisfied that there will be breach of peace as required under Section 145. It was submitted that it is settled law that where the Magistrate proceeds under Section 145 CrPC without being satisfied as to the existence of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace, he acts without jurisdiction and even the provision under Section 465 CrPC cannot cure such irregularity. Thus, the order was liable to be quashed.

Today, when the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan, counsel for Edappadi Palaniswamy submitted that the faction led by Mr. O Paneerselvam had caused the conflict on 11th July. He also submitted that much of the happening on that day was due to the inaction of the police who failed to give police protection at the Party Headquarters as sought for. "If police had acted, there could not have been an opportunity to capture the party office, break open the lock and ransack.", he argued.

He pointed out that the procedure as contemplated under Section 145 and Section 146 CrPC were also not followed. He also contended that the FIR had wrongly mentioned that 200 people each of the OPS and the EPS groups had clashed while at the said time EPS was nowhere near the party office.

Senior Advocate Ramesh, appearing for O Paneerselvam suggested that the court should interfere with the order of RDO as the same was without application of mind. At the same time, the parties could approach a civil court to adjudicate on who has authority over the property or could even go for a settlement.

Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Thilak informed the court that 300 policemen were deployed. The police had started lathi charge only when OPS had broke open the lock and violence erupted between the two groups. Since there were six schools near the Party Headquarters, the police intervened and got orders from the RDO.

The court then asked the APP to file a report on what transpired on the day of the incident along with the video recordings and adjourned the matter to tomorrow.

Case Title: Edappadi K.Palaniswamy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case No: CRL OP 16343 of 2022