The Madras High Court said that no interim order can be issued without hearing the AIADMK side’s explanation in the case against the July 11 General Assembly resolutions, and ordered the AIADMK and Interim General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami to respond within 2 weeks regarding the case filed by O. Panneerselvam.
Former chief minister O. Panneerselvam and general committee member Vairamuthu had filed a case in the Madras High Court against the AIADMK General Committee held in July last year. The single judge who heard the case ruled that the General Assembly was invalid. A two-judge bench that heard the appeal filed by opposition leader Edappadi Palaniswami against it ruled that the General Assembly should proceed.
The cases filed by Panneerselvam and Vairamuthu in the Supreme Court against this verdict were decided on February 23. It was clarified that the Supreme Court, which had ruled that the General Assembly convened on July 11, would not interfere in the decisions passed therein, and that the court hearing the civil cases would take the decision.
In this case, Alankulam Constituency MLA belonging to former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam’s team sought to cancel the July 11 General Assembly Resolutions. BH Manoj Pandian has filed a copyright case in the Madras High Court. When the case came up for hearing before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy, senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appeared for Manoj Pandian and presented arguments.
In it, he argued that his removal from the party was a violation of party rules, the posts of coordinator and co-coordinator were dissolved, and the post of general secretary was brought back and restrictions were imposed on contesting it. He argued that these decisions of the General Assembly were against the principles of party founder MGR and therefore should be banned from acting on the resolutions passed on July 11.
Guru Krishnakumar explained that in the absence of any charges against him, the dismissal without giving him an opportunity to explain was illegal, and only the coordinator and co-coordinator could take action to remove him from the party, and the general body had no authority. He alleged that there was no agenda in the General Assembly regarding their removal and that action was taken arbitrarily against natural justice.
It was informed that the case against the General Assembly is pending and based on the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on February 23, this legal case has been filed against the removal. Manoj Pandian’s side argued that Edappadi’s side had argued in the Supreme Court that the suit opposing the convening of the general body was invalid as the resolutions had been passed after the general meeting was over, and therefore a case had been filed against the resolutions.
According to the party rules, Guru Krishnakumar argued that the general body has no power to remove members except for disciplinary action if they act against the principles. It was argued by Manoj Pandian that since the General Assembly held in December 2021 did not approve the election of Coordinator and Co-Coordinator, the decision to dissolve those positions and bring back the post of General Secretary was illegal, and there was no evidence to say that the basic members of the party wanted a single leadership, and therefore the resolutions that removed them should be cancelled.
Senior advocates Vijay Narayan and CS Vaithyanathan Akiyore appeared on behalf of AIADMK and Edappadi Palaniswami and OPS has been making the same arguments for the past 9 months. The parties submitted and requested 2 weeks time to hear and respond to their arguments in the case. But Manoj Pandian’s lawyer said that the appointment of the interim general secretary is against the party rules and they are going to announce the election for the post of general secretary.
When it was urged that the decisions should be stayed without hearing the arguments of the opposing petitioners including the AIADMK, the judge intervened and questioned how an interim order could be issued without hearing the arguments of the opposing petitioners. Manoj Pandian’s side explained that because he is unable to participate in the assembly session due to the Supreme Court ruling, a ban should be placed on the resolutions. It was also informed that a decision was taken by the General Assembly to select the candidates for the Erode East Constituency based on the order of the Supreme Court.
The judge categorically stated that no interim order can be issued without hearing the arguments of the respondents in the case, ordered the AIADMK and Edappadi Palaniswami to respond to the case within 2 weeks and adjourned the hearing of the case to March 17.