Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas By OPS, Other Expelled AIADMK Members Challenging Party Resolutions

Justice K Kumaresh Babu heard the parties in detail on a special sitting. Earlier, the court gave nod for conducting the general secretary elections but directed the party not to declare the results till the challenges were disposed.

Senior Counsel Guru Krishnakumar, appearing for O Paneerselvam contended that the party resolutions were arbitrary and against the democratic principles of the party. He submitted that the extreme disciplinary action of removal from party was taken without affording an opportunity to defend the case.

Whenever such disciplinary action is taken, the person against whom action is to be taken should be called upon to give his explanation.There was no agenda, no discussion just self serving assumptions. Does the party give such powers to take such extreme steps?, Krishnakumar submitted.

He also added that the claim of party and members having a contractual relationship was to be dismissed at the first instance. He submitted that when one was dealing with a political party, one was also dealing with the Representation of People's Act and the Constitutional principles.

"When you are dealing with political parties, you're Dealing with People's Representatives Act, constitutional provisions. You cannot implant the provisions of contract ipso jure and lift your hands.Their contention that the relation is contractual and thus courts should not interfere in the internal matters of the party should be dismissed. This is not an unincorporated club or society. This is a party registered with the election commission" he argued

Senior Counsel C. Manishankar and A.K. Sriram and Advocate Abdul Saleem also made submissions for other expelled leaders of the party.

On behalf of the party and the general council, Senior Counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan and Vijay Narayan submitted that the resolutions were passed keeping in mind the wish of the party founder who intended the party to have a single leadership. Further, the council was the supreme body of the party, and it had been bestowed with the powers to take any decision concerning the party. It was also submitted that the leaders were merely making allegations without actually proving how irreparable injury will be caused to them.

After heated arguments from both sides, the court reserved the matter for orders intended to be pronounced by Friday. Meanwhile, O Paneerselvam has requested time till Friday to file their written argument.

Case Title: Paul Manoj Pandian @ PH Manoj Pandian v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and others

Case No: OA 235 of 2023 (and other connected)