Vijay Narayan stated that the agenda for the general meeting on July 11 was prepared on June 27, and as the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator expired, general committee notices were sent to the members of the general committee on July 1, and the general committee was convened as per the law.
Intervening, the judge questioned how the terms of the coordinator and co-coordinator expired less than a year ago when the terms of office were for 5 years.
Responding to that, Edappadi Palanichamy’s defense counsel said that the amendments to the party rules made in the December 1, 2021 executive committee were not approved in the general assembly. Therefore, the general body did not approve the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator, he said.
Edappadi Palaniswami’s side informed that the positions are expiring because the General Assembly did not approve the election procedures and the executive officers of the two parties have explained to the Election Commission that they will look after the party’s affairs.
It was informed that the rules have been amended only in the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator and the posts of general body members have not expired.
In the June 23 general meeting itself, since the July 11 general meeting had been notified, it was explained that it was not possible to say that advance notice was not given, and that the notice should be given about the meeting.
In particular, Vijay Narayan concluded his arguments by saying that 2432 of the members of the General Assembly have given a letter that they want a single leadership and the party has given a letter proposing Edappadi Palanichami to lead the party after MGR Jayalalithaa.
After that, E.P.S. Another senior lawyer S.R.Rajagopal appeared for the side and mentioned that the coordinator is one of the counter-petitioners and said that this petition filed by Panneerselvam as a petitioner is not suitable for hearing and that Panneerselvam knows that the general body will be held on 11th July and Panneerselvam knows it in the general body itself on 23rd June.
He said that 15 days advance notice should be given to the regular General Committee convened by the Party Coordinator and Co-Coordinator, and 15 days notice is not required to be given to the General Committee convened if one-fifth of the General Committee members request it.
He also mentioned that if the request of O. Panneerselvam, who was removed from the post of basic member of the party, is accepted, it will go against the decision of the majority of the members.
He also mentioned that Panneerselvam’s behavior should be observed in the matter of the conflict in the AIADMK office. Then Justice Jayachandran intervened and instructed Edappadi Palanichami’s side not to argue about the matter which is not related to the case.
Nitish Kumar’s decision is welcome: Thiruma Pham!
He said that the general assembly members will be elected as they have not made any amendment to the election rules, and since the general assembly members are the representatives of the basic members, the decision taken by them should be seen as the decision of the entire members, and the general assembly members want a single leadership.
Later, advocate Narmada Sampath appeared on behalf of AIADMK leaders and insisted that the majority should look into internal party matters.
Responding to Edappadi Palanichamy’s arguments, Panneerselvam’s senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar explained that if no resolutions were passed in the June 23 General Assembly, there was no question of approving the election for the two posts and nowhere in the June 23 General Assembly resolution did it state that the two positions would lapse if the General Assembly did not approve.
He pointed out that when there is no vacancy, they are trying to make it look like there is a vacancy and that the reason why the general body was convened in 2017 was to choose the coordinator and co-coordinator, but the current situation is different.
He explained that it is not acceptable to know about the general assembly through television and press, and the agenda should be properly prepared and notice given to the members, and that notice should be brought by the members coming to the general assembly.
At that time, when the judge questioned whether the majority of the members were in favor of Edappadi Palaniswami, O. Panneerselvam’s side explained that the decision of 2665 general committee members cannot be considered as the will of the entire one and a half crore volunteers.
It was further stated that the suit is being pursued in the interests of the party and in such matters, the petitioner should be named as one of the respondents by virtue of the post of coordinator.
Another senior advocate Arvind Pandian, who appeared for Panneerselvam, explained that the permanent chairman who called the July 11 general committee meeting was not appointed by the convenor and co-convenor. Both posts are said to be vacant. But it was also reported that there is video evidence of him calling Edappadi Palaniswami as the co-convenor when he proposed to appoint the chairperson permanently.
He said that only in AIADMK there was a rule that any basic member can become the leader, but now they have amended the rule that only if they have been a basic member for 5 years, they can contest for the post of general secretary.
Senior advocate Shriram appeared for Vairamuthu and said that just as the media flashing the order issued by the court cannot be accepted as an official announcement by the court, similarly the live broadcast of the June 23 General Assembly cannot be considered as a notice for the July 11 General Assembly.
Justice Jayachandran, after hearing the arguments of all the sides, has ordered to postpone the judgment on the cases filed by O. Panneerselvam and Vairamuthu against the AIADMK General Committee without specifying a date.