AIADMK Rift : Supreme Court Dismisses OPS Plea, Affirms High Court Direction To De-Seal Party Headquarters

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli upheld the order of the High Court stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), indeed, lacked jurisdictional requirements for exercising power under Section 145(1) CrPC.

"The sole basis of the notice is the FIR, a bare reading of which indicates there was no dispute concerning land (including building). The impugned order of HC has to be sustained that the jurisdiction requirement for invoking S. 145(1) was not met in this case."

However, the Bench clarified that the present order would not have any bearing on the other disputes between the Paneerselvam and Palanisamy factions which are pending adjudication.

In its order, the High Court had noted that the Executive Magistrate could not have exercised power under Section 145(1) CrPC and order of sealing passed by it was without application of mind. The Supreme Court Bench agreed that Section 145(1) CrPC can be exercised only when there is an allegation indicating existence of dispute in relation to 'any land or water or the boundaries thereof'. Since neither the FIR on the basis of which the RDO had initiated action, nor the notice issued by the RDO indicates any dispute with respect to the concerned building (land), the sealing order would not be valid. Justice Chandrachud was of the opinion -

"So what is the purpose of the court [under Section 145(1)], to decide who is in possession. This entire 145(1) notice is blissfully silent about any concerns regarding a building. Therefore the very jurisdiction of exercising Section 145(1) does not arise."

Section 145(1) CrPC reads as under -

"145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.

(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression" land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property."

The RDO had locked and sealed the AIADMK party headquarters in exercise of power under Section 145 CrPC, on 11.07.2022, amid clashes between two factions of the political party pursuant to the General Council meeting on the same day.

Before the High Court, Edappadi Palaniswamy had contended that the procedure as contemplated under Section 145 and Section 146 CrPC were not followed. He contended that being the Headquarters Secretary was in possession of the party building. He also submitted that it was people belonging to the OPS faction who created conflicts which later led to a violent situation. O. Paneerselvam, on the other hand contended that till 11th July, both him and EPS had possession over the party headquarters. He submitted that on the day of the meeting, he was prevented from entering the party office. He submitted that the Magistrate's work was to adjudicate on who was in actual possession of the party headquarters and not who had the right to possess the building.

Though the High Court had directed the RDO to hand over the keys of the headquarters to Palaniswamy, it had asked him not to allow party cadres to enter the building premises to ensure restoration of peace.

Appearing before the Supreme Court Bench, on behalf of the former CM, Paneerselvam, Senior Advocate, Ranjit Kumar argued that if the High Court was of the opinion that the RDO had not applied its mind, the matter ought to have been remanded back to the RDO and not decided by the High Court.

Justice Chandrachud noted, "High Court finds fault with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that the jurisdictional requirements for the exercise of power was found to be absent."

He added -

"You shall also bear in mind that attaching the office of a political party has extraordinarily far reaching consequences. In a democracy you are then not allowing a political party to effectively function. Should we allow this, the power may be misused in a given circumstances."

As Mr. Kumar read the contents of the concerned FIR, which dealt with the serious consequences of the clash between supporters of the two factions of AIADMK, Justice Chandrachud observed that the FIR does not reveal anything about the dispute of possession of the building; the content merely indicates that there was a 'law and order situation'.

Mr. Kumar emphasised that while passing the order of sealing, apart from the FIR the RDO had relied upon photographs and videotapes. He contended that the primary issue is that his client, the former CM, was prevented from entering the party headquarters.

Noting that attachment of office of a political party is not healthy for a democracy, Justice Chandrachud was not inclined to interfere with the de-sealing order of the High Court.

"Two factions of a political party may behave in however rowdy a manner you cannot attach the party office"

Senior Advocate, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar also appearing for Paneerselvam assailed the High Court's order on the ground that in a quashing petition it had decided on the issue of possession of property.

"The High Court today in a Section 482 (CrPC) petition arising out of Section 145(1) CrPC notice assumes the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and says no this party is in possession and is entitled."

Refusing to interfere, the Bench asked the party to avail remedy in civil suit.

"We will close this matter, we will not interfere. You get relief in your suit, establish your right in your suit and then you have a valid point."

[Case Title: O Panneerselvam v. Revenue Divisional Officer]

Click Here To Read/Download Order