EPS v OPS : Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Which Restrained AIADMK General Council From Passing Resolutions

In the dispute between Edappadi K Palaniswami(EPS) and O Paneerselvam (OPS) regarding the leadership of AIADMK party, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Madras High Court division bench's order staying the passing of resolutions in AIADMK General Council Meeting.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari passed the interim order in the special leave petition filed by EPS against the June 23 order of the High Court.

The Supreme Court orally observed that Courts cannot interfere with the inner functioning of a political party. The Court clarified that the further meetings of the general council can proceed in accordance with law. This means that there is no restraint on the meeting proposed on July 11.

The special leave petition has been filed against the order passed by a division bench comprising Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Duraiswamy on June 23 restraining the AIADMK General Council from passing any resolutions. The division bench passed an order in an intra-court appeal filed by M Shanmugham, AIADMK's general council member belonging to the O Paneerselvam (OPS) group against the single judge order passed earlier in the day where the single judge refused to restrain the party from making any amendments to its bye-laws. 

The dispute relates to the changing of the dual-leadership structure of AIADMK. After the passing away of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalitha, AIADMK had been following a dual-leadership model with O Paneerselvam(OPS) and EPS leading it as coordinator and joint coordinator respectively.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari orally observed that the division bench exceeded its jurisdiction by passing directions to interfere with the internal functioning of the party.

"The direction amounts to the Court telling the party how it should function? Can such an order be passed even at the final decree stage, let alone the interim stage?, the bench asked.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for EPS, informed the bench that contempt petitions have been initiated for the party meeting held. "The attempt is to stop the internal democracy of the party by a person who does not have the support of majority members", he submitted.

The bench said that if contempt proceedings have been initiated, then it will have to examine the legality of the order.

The bench also observed that the single bench had rightly declined to pass an interim order to interfere with the General Council meeting, but the division bench reversed it.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the OPS group, submitted that the single bench had not recorded any reason in the order and added that the division bench has passed a reasoned order. As regards the concern expressed by the bench regarding the contempt proceeding, Singh said that the division bench order is related to only the June 23 meeting.

"Can the Court pass an order how to conduct a meeting?These things have to be worked out internally", the bench observed.

"Why should the matters be decided in a judicial forum instead of the general council?", the bench further asked.

Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, also appearing for the OPS group, submitted that the aggrieved party can approach the Court if the meetings are held in violation of the bye-laws.

When the senior counsel submitted that the order related only to the June 23 meeting,  bench said that it is necessary to staying the same in view of the contempt proceedings being initiated.

The bench issued notice in the SLP and sought counter-affidavits of the respondents in two weeks. The bench dictated the following order :

"Operation and effect of impugned order dated 23.06.2022 shall remain stayed. It may be clarified that though the said order dealt only with meeting dated 23 June, 2022 which has already taken place, but in view of the further steps/proceedings to be taken up or likely to be taken up pursuant to the observation in the impugned order and with respect to the questions raised in these three petitions, it appears necessary and expedient that the operation of this order remains stayed till further orders of this Court

So far as the meeting of the General Council of the AIADMK to take place on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in the accordance with law.  

At present we do not consider it necessary to pass any other orders of interim nature.. It is made clear that pendency of these petitions in this court could not be of any impediment in Ld Single Judge dealing with civil suits examining prayer for any other interim relief or pass any other order as needed for facts and circumstances of the case". 

Case Title : Thiru K Palaniswamy versus M Shanmugham and others, SLP(c) No.11237/2022