The court may have said that the court cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the party when the OPS filed a case seeking a ban on the AIADMK General Committee. A two-day trial to say that the court cannot interfere in internal party affairs? After two days of investigation, after asking all the questions from both sides, in the end, they said that they can hold a public committee, so much of this controversy has happened. Many people are criticizing that if a person goes to the court, he should solve his problem and not say that the court should not come at all.
During the first day of the two-day hearing, the judge had asked 4 questions from the EPS side. What is the current status of co-coordinator posts? Are the executive officers authorized to convene the general meeting? Edappadi directed the parties to file a detailed reply regarding how many days before the general committee notice should be sent. To that, the opposing party also gave a reply after taking time to explain. At the end, there is a criticism that those questions and explanations are not in the solution.
The judge raised four important questions. Why is there no observation or remark in the judgment copy about any of those questions?” asks Aspire Swaminathan, former IT wing executive of AIADMK.
In today’s judgement, the judge allowed the general assembly to be held as the majority of members supported it. Judge Krishnan Ramasamy ruled that he cannot interfere in internal party affairs and if the rules are violated, he can approach the court.
He further said in his judgement, those who cannot gain the trust of party members are using the courts as a tool. The petitioner who cannot get the support of the parties tries to achieve what he wants through the courts. The will of the majority of the members of a democracy will prevail. The coordinator has to pacify the members according to the development of the interest of the party. If no solution is found in the General Assembly then the Court of Law may be approached. It is noteworthy that he said that the court will not interfere in matters of framing party rules for better governance.
The Hon’ble Justice raised four important questions. Why is there no observation or remark in the judgment copy about any of those questions?
— aspire Swaminathan (@aspireswami) July 11, 2022