A day after a chaotic AIADMK general council meeting in which party workers booed its leader O. Panneerselvam, steering committee member and former Law Minister C.Ve. Shanmugam on Friday claimed the tenure of the party’s coordinator Panneerselvam and the co-coordinator Edappadi K. Palaniswami ended on Thursday, as the amendment in the bylaws that facilitated their election to those positions were not validated by the general council.
“As of today, Mr. Panneerselvam is the party’s treasurer and Mr. Palaniswami is party’s headquarters secretary,” claimed Mr. Shanmugam during his interaction with journalists outside the residence of Mr. Palaniswami in Chennai.
Flanked by senior AIADMK leaders S.P. Velumani, D. Jayakumar, Udumalai K. Radhakrishnan, C. Vijayabaskar, Pollachi V. Jayaraman, Thalavai Sundaram, among others, Mr. Shanmugam cited party rules to reject claims by rebel AIADMK leader R. Vaithilingam (who has taken sides with Mr. Panneerselvam) that the general council meeting held on Thursday was illegal.
Recalling that “then coordinator” O. Panneerselvam and “then co-coordinator” Edappadi K. Palaniswami had jointly signed for calling for a general council meeting, Mr. Shanmugam sought to know whether Mr. Vaithilingam questioned Mr. Panneerselvam’s signature.
Since the positions of the coordinator and co-coordinator was not validated by the party’s general council during the meeting on Friday, “they ended,” the former Law Minister claimed and further said the general council meeting had the authority to elect the party’s presidium chairman.
The election of Mr. A. Tamilmagan Hussain as party’s presidium chairman was valid, as he was elected by the general council, Mr. Shanmugam maintained and further added that the election of positions in the AIADMK was “to be merely intimated” to the Election Commission and the latter’s approval was not needed.
In the absence of coordinator and co-coordinator positions, the newly-elected presidium chairman had the authority to call for convening the party’s general council meeting on July 11, after receiving pleas in this regard by a majority of general council members. Mr. Shanmugam said. The general council was the supreme body in the party and it had the authority to make or amend laws, he maintained.
As per the bylaw, one-fifth of the members of the general council could seek a meeting and upon such demand the meeting has to be convened within 30 days. Therefore, Mr Shanmugam contended, the General council meeting convened for July 11 by the presidium chairman (as sought by 2,190 members) was valid.
