AIADMK Leadership: Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Palaniswami's Appeal Against Order Restoring Status Quo Ante

The bench of Justice M Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan further directed the counsels to file their written submissions by 3 pm on Friday.

On 17th August 2022, a single bench had ordered status quo ante as on 23rd June 2022 thus in effect nullifying the General Council meeting that was held on July 11 and consequently the appointment of Edappadi Palaniswamy as the Interim General Secretary of the party. Challenging this order, Palaniswamy approached the court.

Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for EPS, contended that the order of the single judge was not only beyond the reach of law but in effect had virtually set aside the order of the Supreme Court that was passed in July. The judge had ordered a status quo ante on certain assumptions, he said.

Firstly, he had observed that the notice for the General Council meeting was sent on July 1. However, the decision to conduct the meeting was taken in the General Council meeting held on 23^rd June, EPS side argued.

Vaidyanathan further submitted that the respondent herein had contended before the single judge that the decision taken only by the general council members cannot be taken as the will of the 1.5 crore people in the party. This contention is however striking at the fundamental principles of democracy of this country and is challenging every law made in the country, he said. Further, he submitted that the contention with respect to 1.5 crore people was not even mentioned in the written arguments.

Emphasizing the party bye-laws, he submitted that the bye-laws clearly specify that the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator will be appointed by the General Council and not by all the 1.5 crore members. Hence the ultimate powers are with the General Council.

Vaidyanathan also highlighted that the prayer granted by the Single Judge was never sought by the respondent. The prayer was only with respect to an injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out the amendments made in the meeting. 

With respect to the notice, he submitted that the purpose of the notice is to ensure that all the members are aware of the meeting and its agendas. It was not the case that a General Council member had come forward and said that he did not know about the meeting. Thus, the purpose of the meeting was fulfilled.

Continuing the arguments, Senior Counsel Ariyama Sundaram, appearing for EPS submitted that the single judge had looked into the matter with a company law aspect and had said that all the primary members had to approve. He submitted that in the party, the General Council was the supreme authority and that not all decisions can be made by the primary members. The bylaws by which the party is governed clearly state that the power was with the General Council. The single judge had not considered these bye-laws and instead may have looked into the democratic approach.

Sundaram substantiated his argument by stating that this was an action in personam and not an action in rem. The aggrieved had to show how he was aggrieved. In the present case, it was not the grievance of the respondent that he had not received a notice. Further the single judge had ordered that the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator had to call the meeting jointly when in fact the entire series of litigation emerged because they could not act together. Thus, the order of the single judge had created a functional deadlock in the party.

Emphasizing the aspect of requisition, Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for EPS submitted that the same was necessitated after the incidents that followed in the meeting held on 23^rd June. All the party members had given signatures giving their approval to the amendments that were initially planned to be taken in the meeting. However, on the day of the meeting the High court had restrained the party from making certain decisions. The members had decided that any decision was to be made only after deciding the issue of single leadership. This had therefore necessitated calling for the meeting on July 11.

Appearing for O Paneerselvam, Senior Counsel Guru Krishnakumar submitted that the contention that General Council was supreme was against the byelaws of the party. In fact, this was a party where the General Secretary, who was the head, was appointed by the primary members. This was the intention of Late MGR when he formed the party.

Krishnakumar further submitted that as per the rules of the party, the notice for the meeting was to be sent by the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator. Since it was sent by the party headquarters, the notice was improper. He submitted that when the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator were appointed by the primary members, the General Council could not come forward and say that the post was vacant since the decision was not ratified. This would be against the interests of the primary members. He also contended that just because the respondent knew about the meeting, it could not be assumed that he had no grievance. His grievance, in fact was that the meeting was not properly convened.

The submissions were continued by Senior Counsel Arvind Pandian who highlighted that the basic constitution of the party was that the election must be from the bottommost layer. Advocate AK Sriram, appearing for Amman Vairamuthu, a general council member, took the court through various discrepancies in the signature obtained by the party members claiming to be the will of the majority. Thus, he submitted that the requisition was in fact improper. He also highlighted that the General Council had powers to ratify only certain decisions and amendments was not one of them.

Case Title: E Palaniswamy v. O Paneerselvam and others

Case No: OSA 227 of 2022