CHENNAI: The functional deadlock in AIADMK ended on Thursday when the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval to the party’s July 11, 2022, special general council meeting in which Edappadi K Palaniswami was elected interim general secretary and O Panneerselvam expelled.
Multiple rounds of litigation revolved around questions like who was to convene the general council meeting, if the members had prior intimation and whether or not the 15-day advance notice mandatory.
Interpreting almost every point in favour of the Palaniswami faction, the division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said the June 23 meeting had been “duly convened” and “even if the slated business was not transacted, all that had happened in that meeting could not have been ignored”.
Noting that Panneerselvam and those backing him were present at the meeting, the bench said, “The general council consists of 2,665 members. If 2,190 out of these 2,665 consented to the general council meeting and the presidium chairman announced the date, in the given set of facts and circumstances, such an announcement, at least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed wholly redundant”.
The bench rejected the Panneerselvam faction’s argument that no notice was issued to the general council members 15 days prior to the meeting, saying this clause was mandatory only for the annual general council.
It also referred to a past instance of an interim general secretary (V K Sasikala) not being able to function in that role because of her incarceration in a criminal case. The then office-bearers convened a meeting on September 12, 2017, based on the requisition made by the members.
Even if the resolutions passed on June 23 and July 11, 2022 were found to be illegal or against the bylaws, it was always open to one-fifth of the members of the general council to convene a special meeting and reverse the resolutions passed in these two meetings, the bench said.
“The directions given by a single judge to convene the meeting only with the joint consent of coordinator and joint coordinator was leading to a situation where the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because there was no possibility of OPS and EPS acting jointly to convene the meeting,” the bench said.
Multiple rounds of litigation revolved around questions like who was to convene the general council meeting, if the members had prior intimation and whether or not the 15-day advance notice mandatory.
Interpreting almost every point in favour of the Palaniswami faction, the division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheswari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said the June 23 meeting had been “duly convened” and “even if the slated business was not transacted, all that had happened in that meeting could not have been ignored”.
Noting that Panneerselvam and those backing him were present at the meeting, the bench said, “The general council consists of 2,665 members. If 2,190 out of these 2,665 consented to the general council meeting and the presidium chairman announced the date, in the given set of facts and circumstances, such an announcement, at least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed wholly redundant”.
The bench rejected the Panneerselvam faction’s argument that no notice was issued to the general council members 15 days prior to the meeting, saying this clause was mandatory only for the annual general council.
It also referred to a past instance of an interim general secretary (V K Sasikala) not being able to function in that role because of her incarceration in a criminal case. The then office-bearers convened a meeting on September 12, 2017, based on the requisition made by the members.
Even if the resolutions passed on June 23 and July 11, 2022 were found to be illegal or against the bylaws, it was always open to one-fifth of the members of the general council to convene a special meeting and reverse the resolutions passed in these two meetings, the bench said.
“The directions given by a single judge to convene the meeting only with the joint consent of coordinator and joint coordinator was leading to a situation where the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because there was no possibility of OPS and EPS acting jointly to convene the meeting,” the bench said.
