The High Court’s order, passed on the day the general council meeting was to be held (June 23), had come after a single-judge had refused to interfere in the matter.
Amidst the leadership crisis in the AIADMK after the party’s defeat in the State elections last year, a section of the office-bearers have sought to amend the party’s bye-laws to enable a single leader for the party.
At present, after the passing of former CM and the party’s general secretary J Jayalalithaa, the AIADMK has had a dual leadership structure with Palaniswamy being joint-coordinator and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam being the coordinator.
The recent general council meeting of the AIADMK had sought to abolish these posts and restore the post of the general secretary.
The present appeal has contended that the High Court has interfered with the internal democratic processes of a political party, contradicted common sense, and prevented its highest decision-making body from regulating party affairs.
It said that the ruling under challenge was erroneous, flawed and non est in law.
“It is well settled that in the matters pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party is not interfered with by the Courts … the Courts cannot insist the members to act in a particular manner,” the plea said.
The High Court effectively gave Pannerselvam, the second respondent, a veto power after his ‘fallacious and untenable’ submission that no amendments to the bye-laws can take place without his consent, the plea stated.
Pannerselvam’s apprehensions that he will lose the post of joint-coordinator due to the amendments is misplaced and in fact, he has lost the same due to the efflux of time (5-year term limit), the plea contended.
It was further argued that free, fair and unhindered discussions are part of the ethos of the AIADMK and the order under challenge cripples the enabling of the same.
Accordingly, an interim stay on the order and further proceedings before the Madras High Court was prayed for.
The plea was drawn by advocates K Gowtham Kumar and Shiva Krishnamurti, and filed by advocate Balaji Srinivasan.
Source: Barandbench
