The Madras High Court recently reserved the order in the petitions filed by O Panneerselvam (or OPS) and his supporters challenging the July 11, 2022 resolutions passed by the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
A single judge bench of Justice K Kumaresh Babu reserved orders in the pleas which also challenged the party’s appeal for elections to the office of General Secretary.
The General Council removed the positions of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator during its July 11 meeting, instead naming OPS’ political opponent and former Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) as the party’s interim General Secretary.
The Council had dismissed OPS and others from the party on the grounds of anti-party conduct.
Senior counsel for one of the expelled leaders claimed that the party lacked the authority to take severe measures such as dismissing main members without even giving them a fair hearing.
“Whenever such disciplinary action is taken, the person against whom action is to be taken should be called upon to give his explanation. When you are dealing with political parties, you are dealing with the Representation of the People Act and constitutional provisions. You can not implant the provisions of contract ipso jure and lift your hands,” he stated.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the regulations had been changed in favor of EPS, who has registered his nomination for the position of General Secretary and is expected to be elected. They stated that if given the opportunity, the OPS would run for General Secretary.
The bench was informed that the decision to have a single leader for the party was made to strengthen the organization, and that the eligibility criteria for members to run for General Secretary had been changed to ensure that those who did not have the support of party members did not participate in the election.
Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan and Vijay Narayan, representing EPS and the AIADMK, informed the bench that OPS and others were attempting to suppress party members’ voices by opposing the elections and General Council resolutions. They further stated that courts cannot intervene in a political party’s internal affairs.
