Madras High Court order restraining amendment to AIADMK bye-laws stayed by Supreme Court

A Madras High Court order preventing the general council of All-India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from amending its bye-laws, was stayed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday [Thiru K Palaniswamy vs M Shanmugum & Ors]..A vacation be bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari issued notice in the matter while directing that counter-affidavits be filed within two weeks."it is considered appropriate and hence ordered and observed as under:- a. Operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 shall remain stayed" the Court directed.The Court was hearing a plea by former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and headquarters secretary of the AIADMK, Edappadi K Palaniswamy challenging the Madras High Court order. The Bench also directed the following:"... b. So far as the Meeting of the General Council of the respondent No. 3 [AIADMK], slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief ought to be projected and presented before the learned Single Judge dealing with civil suit(s) on the Original Side. c. We do not consider it necessary to pass any other order of interim nature and all other aspects are to be examined at the appropriate stage. d. It is made clear that pendency of these petitions in this Court shall not be of any impediment for the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil suit(s) to examine the prayer for any other interim relief and/or to pass any other necessary order, as may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case.".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..Before the top court today, Senior Advocate CS Vaidnyanathan submitted that a non-appealable order was passed affecting interal party democracy. He pointed out that a contempt petition with regard to the order under challenge is coming up before the High Court tomorrow.Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the respondents, argued that the action of the present appellant was unilateral and aimed towards getting unitary leadership of the party in his favour.Singh added that the division bench's order came as the single-judge had erroneously observed that none of the parties had made out a prima facie case.The contempt plea pending is in relation to an appointment made by the general council, Singh contended. Further, the dual leadership structure of the party has to remain till September 2022 as per its bye-laws, he submitted.The Bench throughout the hearing questioned the need for judicial intervention in a matter relating to inner party dynamics. At the outset, it orally observed that the order under challenge was a spent force given the meeting had taken place and another one is scheduled soon."The single-judge refused to give interim relief for a reason. Can we pass order directing them how to conduct meeting? ... Who wants to do what within the party forum is essentially within that compact only. Jurisdiction of appellate court is there, we're not overturning that ...These things have to be worked out internally," the Bench remarked..The plea was drawn by advocates K Gowtham Kumar and Shiva Krishnamurti, and filed through advocate Balaji Srinivasan..[Follow our coverage of the hearing].[Read order]