Internal affairs of political party a no-go area for courts: Madras High Court dismisses plea by O Panneerselvam to halt AIADMK meet

The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed an application filed by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam seeking to put a hold on the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) general council meeting set to be held on Monday [O Panneerselvam v AIADMK]..Justice Krishnan Ramasamy pronounced the order at 9 am, paving the way for the meeting to be held at 10 am. The judge emphasised that according to the general rule, when there was a difference among the members, the majority decided the issue. "In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail," the Court underscored..The single-judge stated that once the majority exercised its powers with regard to the party's internal administration, the Court could not interfere with the wisdom of the majority. It was emphasised that this was indeed a "no go area" for courts. "The matter at hand is an intra-party affair. The law is trite that Courts jurisdiction is ousted in matters dealing with internal affairs or resolution of a political party regarding any aspect of the matter such as nomination, election of leadership, amendment of bye-laws etc," the single-judge stated..Amidst the leadership crisis in the AIADMK after the party's defeat in the State elections last year, a section of the office-bearers 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 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 applicants had sought an injunction against the meeting on the ground that it was scheduled without the mandatory notice 15 days in advance, and without the express authorisation of both the co-ordinator and joint co-ordinator of the party.It was argued that though the Supreme Court had directed for the meeting to continue, the High Court could very well intervene if a prima facie case was made out.A vacation be bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari of the Supreme Court had last week stayed an order of a division bench of the Madras High Court preventing the general council from amending its bye-laws.The division bench 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.After the Supreme Court stayed the division bench order, it was pointed out before the High Court that the top court had made it clear that the petition’s pendency was no impediment on the High Court to examine any other interim relief..To begin with, Justice Ramasamy clarified that the Court could not take a decision contrary to the apex court’s order since nowhere did the order say that the High Court was empowered to decide the issue regarding the meeting.It was, in fact, highlighted that there was no ambiguity in the Supreme Court’s order."Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the General Council meeting as scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022 can be proceeded with in accordance with law as already directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.".The single-judge highlighted that the applicants were knocking on the court’s door to use it as a convenient tool to come to their rescue when they could not gain the confidence or support of their party members.“What the applicant could not achieve, wants to achieve through the Court of law and the Courts will certainly refrain to interfere with the private affairs of the party, that too at the instance of just one or two members contrary to the interests of thousands of other members of the party,” the Court stated..It was discussed that the authority to frame, amend, vary and rescind bye-laws of the party vested undoubtedly in the general council. It was, thus, stated that the bye-laws could be ratified by the general council, and any grievance could be addressed before the council itself. Further, should one be prevented from addressing their grievance, the civil court could be approached. .The Court noted that a statement was filed before the Supreme Court that 2,190 out of 2,665 members of the General Council had signed and made a requisition to convene the meeting and the same was given wide publicity in the media.It was also taken note of that the rules did not prescribe for a written notice, therefore, the notice deemed to be issued as early as 23 June was found to be valid..With these considerations, the Court found that the applicants had not made out a prima facie case to be granted interim relief."Accordingly, the general council meeting as scheduled to be held on can be proceeded with in accordance with law as already directed by the Supreme Court," the order read. .[Read Order]