AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami received a major boost and the party’s expelled leader, O. Panneerselvam, suffered a severe setback on Friday, with the Madras High Court refusing to interfere not only with the former’s election to his post, but also with the latter’s expulsion from primary membership of the party.
The Third Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq dismissed all original side appeals preferred by Mr. Panneerselvam and three of his supporters – P.H. Manoj Pandian, R. Vaithilingam and J.C.D. Prabhakar – against the refusal of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu on March 28 to stay five crucial resolutions passed at the party’s July 11, 2022 general council meeting.
Narrating the events that unfolded after Mr. Palaniswami and Mr. Panneerselvam fell apart after the AIADMK lost the 2021 Assembly election, and the several rounds of litigation between them since then, the Bench said the result was that the functioning of one of the major political parties in the State had got mired in controversy and litigation for a long time.
“Several events unfolded to the displeasure of the appellants, and they had approached the courts time and again; but even after two rounds of litigation (that went up to the Supreme Court), they have not made out a case to prove that an injury, incapable of being repaired or redressed by trial in their civil suits, has been caused to them at any point of time,” the Bench wrote.
It pointed out that the question of granting an interim stay against the resolutions would arise only if such an irreparable injury could be caused to the appellants. The Bench also stated that an appellate court could interfere with the exercise of discretion by the single judge only if such discretion was shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely.
Authoring the verdict, Justice Mahadevan said the single judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants could not question the convening of the general council meeting by contending that it ought to have been called by the coordinator and joint coordinator and not by the presidium chairman, when the Supreme Court had permitted the meeting.
The senior judge in the Bench said the Supreme Court had not only permitted the July 11, 2022 general council, but had also held it to be valid in a subsequent order passed on February 23, 2023. He further recorded Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan’s submission that out of 2,665 members of the general council, 2,190 had made a requisition to convene it and 2,460 had attended it.
An overwhelming majority in the general council had passed resolutions to abolish the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator and revive the post of general secretary. “On the basis of the above facts, the learned single judge had held that no prima facie case has been made out for grant of interim injunction. We concur with these findings,” the Division Bench said.
The judges said: “The grant of any interim relief/injunction to the appellants would amount to granting the principal relief as prayed for in their civil suits itself, which cannot be done while granting an interim injunction...Any injunction with respect to the validity of these resolutions would also mean that till the civil suits are disposed of, the party would face a situation of being without leadership as there would be no general secretary, which cannot be permitted.”
They also stated that the wish of the majority of the general council’s members to restore single leadership in the party could not be scuttled by the court even before a full-fledged trial in the civil suits that was pending before the single judge.
Refusing to interfere even with the special resolution through which the appellants were expelled from the party without even issuing seven days’ notice, the Bench said: “When the bylaws make it amply clear that the general council is the ultimate authority to take disciplinary action against any member of the party, the merits of the decision of the general council in resolving to expel the appellants is necessarily a matter for trial [in the civil suit].”
