The Madras High Court order of June 23 had restrained the AIADMK General Council from taking any decision on the question of leadership of the party.
The Madras High Court order of June 23 had restrained the AIADMK General Council from taking any decision on the question of leadership of the party.
Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami on Wednesday won a shot in the arm with the Supreme Court staying the Madras High Court’s June 23 order that had restrained the AIADMK’s general council from taking any decision on the party’s leadership question.
The order came on a plea by Mr. Palaniswami that his former colleague O. Panneerselvam’s “disturbing and prejudicial acts” had brought the functioning of the AIADMK to a “standstill”. He accused Mr. Panneerselvam of “disrupting” the general council meeting on June 23 when the issue of single leadership was raised by the party cadre. He said Mr. Panneerselvam had initiated the court proceedings “so that the meeting did not go ahead and the party cadre could not express their intention”.
While staying the “operation and effect” of the June 23 order of a division bench of the High Court, a vacation bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari said, “Who wants to do what or wants to do at a general council meeting.” The party in the U.S. is essentially a matter within that party or compact … Can a court extend its jurisdiction to order what decisions must or should not be made at a meeting of the General Council?”
The court said the question of AIADMK’s “single leadership” should be decided entirely in the General Council. The Bench said that it would not interfere in the conduct of the next General Council meeting to be held on July 11. However, the parties are free to approach a single judge of the Madras High Court, who is probing civil cases related to the issue, for interim relief. Issuing the notice, the bench made it clear that pendency of petitions in the Supreme Court will not prevent a single judge from dealing with civil cases.
The bench said that issues of “friendship”, power etc. within a party or union should always work on the platform of the party and the judiciary cannot be seen to interfere in the internal working of a party.
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, Vijay Narayan, advocates said, “It was an attempt to stop the working of internal party democracy by a person who does not have even two per cent support in the party. In fact, they wanted to stop the meeting.” Balaji Srinivasan and K. Presented by Gautam Kumar.
Senior advocate Venugopal Gowda appeared for Natham Viswanathan. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra represented P. Benjamin.
On the Respondent side, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh for M. Shanmugam contended that the “dual leadership” method between Mr. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami had worked “without any difficulty for the last five years” and now the latter wanted unilateral . He presides over the entire party.
Senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar for Mr Panneerselvam argued that though the issue pertains to within a party, violation of its bye-laws would attract judicial intervention.
Mr Palaniswami had argued that the Division Bench’s decision on June 23, which was pronounced after the midnight hearing, was “flawed, misleading, non-permanent and untenable in law… it interfered with the internal democratic functioning of the AIADMK.” done, which is against the law and contrary to common sense and cannot be allowed to stand”.
He argued that the “dual leadership” exercise under which he shared power with Mr. Panneerselvam had failed, which was quite evident from the election results. Party members wanted him to take over and run a “single leadership” apparatus. He said the High Court order had created a “power of veto”.
Mr Palaniswami, claimed in his petition, “has emerged as the party’s most popular leader when the party’s overwhelming majority of members have understood the confidence in his leadership”.