The AIADMK’s general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami registered a major legal victory on Friday, August 25, 2023 with a Division Bench of the Madras High Court refusing to interfere with his election to the party post. The Bench also refused to interfere with the expulsion of former coordinator O. Panneerselvam and three of his supporters from the party that took place through a special resolution passed at the party’s July 11, 2022 general council meet.
To get today’s top stories from the State in your inbox, subscribe to our Tamil Nadu Today newsletter
The third Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq dismissed all original side appeals preferred by Mr. Panneerselvam, P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam and J.C.D. Prabhakar against the March 28 refusal of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, to grant them any kind of interim relief in their civil suits. These civil suits were preferred against four regular resolutions passed by the party, with regard to the abolition of the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator, and the revival of the post of general secretary.
The Bench also held that it did not find any reason to stay the operation of a special resolution passed at the general council expelling all four appellants from the AIADMK for having reportedly acted against the interests of the party. Reading out the operative portion of the order in open court, Justice Mahadevan said the court did not find any reason to interfere with the convening of the general council meet or the resolutions passed therein at the present stage.
In his verdict denying interim relief, the single judge had prima facie found an infraction of the party bylaws with respect to a special resolution through which the four leaders had been expelled from the primary membership of the party without any notice. Yet, he refused to interfere with the special resolution by stating the balance of convenience was in favour of the party which feared their inclusion might be detrimental to its interests.
The Division Bench did not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the single judge.
