The hearing of the appeal filed by O. Panneerselvam against the AIADMK General Committee was being conducted in a session comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Rishikesh Roy.
The judges, who allowed the OPS side to argue first, had been listening to the arguments of the AIADMK side since yesterday. Following Arima Sundaram’s argument, advocate Vaidyanathan appeared first on behalf of the AIADMK today.
He said in his argument,
The petitioner has not denied that the General Assembly is a high-powered body. The party was immobilized by the extraterritorial statusco order passed by the single judge. It is a false argument that OPS got the votes of one and a half crore volunteers through elections.
If both the coordinator and co-coordinator worked together, how can OPS, the coordinator in the Vairamuthu case, show himself as the sole plaintiff?
How can one person be the plaintiff and the defendant in a civil case? The Supreme Court has already held that notice need not be construed to be in writing.
In this case, it has been announced on June 23 that the next general meeting will be held on July 11. The petitioner was also there at that time. A further letter has also been sent. No one complained that he did not receive the notice. Therefore the allegation of the petitioner regarding the notice is false.
On June 23, the ADMK president also issued a notice for the July 11 General Assembly. who is he Is it the same petitioner who appointed him as the Chairperson along with the Co-Convenor?
He is claiming that I am the AIADMK in the OPS courts. The place he should go is the Election Commission. However, the reason why OPS has not yet gone to the Election Commission is because it does not have sufficient number of party executives.
He cannot be said to be in the post only after the expiry of the post itself. In case the Tamil Nadu Government cancels the post of Village Administrative Officer, the Government has the authority to cancel the same. Therefore, Vaidyanathan argued that the judgment given by the court in 1982 that no one can claim that they will be in office till the appointed period is also applicable to this case.
When Vaidyanathan explained the reasons why OPS was removed in his argument, the judges interrupted and opined that OPS should not argue about his removal in this court as he himself did not file a case against his removal.
Following this, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatki appeared and argued on behalf of AIADMK president Tamilmakan Usain. Even during Jayalalitha’s tenure as General Secretary, there was a rule that all decisions of the party had to be approved by the General Assembly. The reason is that the General Assembly is the highest body of the AIADMK.
The executive committee passed a resolution to seek the approval of the general body for the executive committee’s decision that both of them should be elected by the basic members through a single vote. Because the General Assembly is the supreme authority. But the Court should note that the approval of the General Assembly was not obtained for the same.
The AIADMK Act states that the decision of the General Assembly is final. Since it is not possible to appoint both of them to the post of General Secretary, which was vacant after Amma’s death, the positions of coordinator and co-coordinator were created in 2017 by the resolution of the general body to facilitate both of them to hold the position.
It was decided by the party to bring back the post of General Secretary with the aim of having a single leadership because the dual leadership has caused unnecessary contraction in the decision-making of the party activities.
The office was locked and sealed after the OPS raided and ransacked the party office. Both OPS-EPS went to court claiming the head office. Mukul Rohatki argued that the Madras High Court heard the case and ordered the party office to be handed over to EPS. The Supreme Court also accepted and confirmed this order.
Then the judges intervened
Both the coordinator and the co-coordinator are elected by ballot box election in single ballot system? As Mukul asked Rohatki, both were elected uncontested as no one contested. He replied that they were not elected by ballot.
And why was OPS removed when it was not on the agenda? Responding to the judges’ question, Mukul Rohatki said that the general meeting was held on July 11 as per the order of the Supreme Court and as per the order of the single judge. Why didn’t OPS, which claims to be the coordinator of the party, go to the General Assembly? He said that the general committee removed him because the general committee members got upset and came up with a resolution to remove the OPS as a mob attacked and looted the AIADMK office.
After the lunch break, advocates Ranjithkumar and Guru Krishnakumar from the OPS side responded to the judges and argued the arguments of the AIADMK side. During his argument, Ranjith Kumar said that the party was crippled because he resigned from the post of co-coordinator. The single judge says that both of them should form a general committee. How will they join together and convene a general meeting after the problem has worsened for both of them? As the judges commented.
The judges adjourned the case for judgment without specifying a date, ordering both sides to file their written arguments within a month following the conclusion of arguments.