Madras High Court sets aside single-judge order cancelling election of E Palaniswami as AIADMK General Secretary

In a big relief for former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami, the Madras High Court on Friday set aside an August 17 order of a single-judge which had quashed the resolution passed at a meeting of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) electing Palaniswami as the interim general secretary of the party [E Palaniswamy v O Panneerselvam]..A bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan allowed the appeal filed by Palaniswami and consequently, quashed and set aside the single-judge order that had been passed by Justice G Jayachandran..On August 17, Justice Jayachandran had issued a status quo order declaring void ab initio (invalid, or, having no effect in law), the party’s July 11 General Council meeting, which had passed the resolution elevating Palaniswami as its interim general secretary..The single-judge order had come as a relief for AIADMK member and Palaniswami's rival, O Panneerselvam, as the latter had been removed from the party’s top post of coordinator and from its primary membership by the Palaniswami camp in the wake of the July 11 meeting..Palaniswami had filed an appeal challenging the single-judge order. Arguments in the appeal were heard at length and it was reserved for verdict by the division bench on 25 August, 2022..Following the death of AIADMK chief J Jayalalitha, and the arrest of the subsequent interim General Secretary V Sasikala, Palaniswami and Panneerselvam held the posts of Joint coordinator and coordinator of the party, respectively. Their tenure, as per Panneerselvam, was to lapse on June 23, 2022..On Friday, the division bench held that the single-judge order resulted in a "further deadlock" in the party that was already subject to much rivalry between Palaniswami and Panneerselvam..The division bench further said that in his plea before the single bench, Panneerselvam had not challenged the proceedings of the June 23 resolution that had announced for the July 11 General Council meeting. Therefore, by restoring status quo, the single-judge went beyond what had been prayed for by Panneerselvam in his plea, the High Court said."The order of status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 is liable to be set side, since it traverse beyond the scope of the Original Application as well as the main suit and as such the same is unsustainable in law," the division bench said."When the order itself recognizes that the appellant (Palaniswami) and the first respondent (Panneerselvam) could not work together, to hold at an interim stage that they have to jointly call for the meeting, will result in stifling the activities of the Party," it said..During the hearings before the division bench, Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for Palaniswami had argued that the order of the single-judge was beyond the reach of law.Vaidyanathan had also argued that Panneerselvam had contended before the single-judge that the decision taken only by the general council members could not be taken as the will of the 1.5 crore people in the party.This contention however went against the fundamental principles of a democracy, he had said.Vaidyanathan had argued that the bye-laws clearly specified that the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator must be appointed by the General Council and not by all the members.Vaidyanathan and Senior Counsel Ariyama Sundaram and Vijay Narayan, who also appeared for Palaniswami, had also highlighted that the prayer granted by the single-judge was never sought by the respondent. The prayer was only with respect to an injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out the amendments made in the meeting..HC also held that the call for the July 11 meeting and the election of a single leader had been ratified by 2,539 of the 2,665 primary members of the General Council of the party. Panneerselvam had walked out of the meeting before the call for the July 11 meeting could be announced."The members of the General council are representing the primary members of the party and when the majority of the members of have given their requisition for convening the special GC meeting on July 11, 2022, the balance of convenience on the contrary clearly lies in favour of the Appellant (Palaniswami)," HC said Friday..It, however, refused to make any comments on the alleged status of the tenure of the posts of the AIADMK coordinator and joint coordinator, and said the same was not the subject matter of the present plea."In the case in hand, the 1st respondent (Panneerselvam) has filed the suit challenging only the Special General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022. When the 1st respondent did not challenge the Resolutions passed in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022, an order of status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 cannot be granted," it said while allowing Palaniswami's appeal..Appearing for Paneerselvam, Senior Counsel Guru Krishnakumar and Arvind Pandian submitted that the contention that General Council was supreme was against the bylaws.It was argued that the late MG Ramachandran, at the time of founding the party, had intended that the party general secretary be appointed by all primary members of the party..[Read Judgment]