SC stays order preventing AIADMK from adopting resolution to end dual leadership

The high court on June 23 restrained the party from taking any decision on unitary leadership amid a power tussle between AIADMK’s joint coordinator O Panneerselvam and fellow coordinator Edappadi K Palaniswami.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras high court order that last month restrained All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)’s General Council from adopting a resolution to end the party’s dual leadership. It allowed the council to go ahead with its July 11 meeting where the leadership issue is to be discussed.

AIADMK leaders Edappadi K Palaniswami and O Panneerselvam. (PTI)

The high court on June 23 restrained the party from taking any decision on unitary leadership amid a power tussle between AIADMK’s joint coordinator O Panneerselvam and fellow coordinator Edappadi K Palaniswami. A single bench of the court earlier restrained the party from amending its by-laws that could have paved the way for Palaniswami to become the party’s sole leader.

A bottle was thrown at Panneerselvam on June 23 and forced the former chief minister to leave the venue of the general council meeting minutes before it concluded.

The Supreme Court told the Panneerselvam-led faction to work out disputes at the council forum while expressing doubts about whether the high court could pass an order restraining it from adopting a particular resolution.

Palaniswamy challenged the high court order saying it infringed upon the inner-party democracy and was passed at the instance of M Shanmugham, a loyalist of Panneerselvam. He claimed to have the backing of a bulk of the council members, who support the idea of unitary leadership.

In his plea, Palaniswamy said AIADMK has reached a point where it cannot function because of Panneerselvam. He sought the setting aside of the high court order saying it in effect creates a power of veto in Panneerselvam’s favour, which is not envisaged in the party by-laws.

A bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari said noted the June 23 order became a “spent force” as the party meeting was over that day.

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who appeared for Palaniswamy, informed the court that the other side has initiated contempt proceedings claiming violation of the June 23 order.

The bench said prima facie it felt the matter should have been dealt with by the single judge of the high court where Shanmugam’s suit is pending. “But if the June 23 order is a subject matter of contempt proceedings, entire complexion changes as we have to then enter into the legality of the said order.”

It added the operation and effect of the order shall remain stayed. “In view of the further proceedings taken up and likely to be taken up and looking into the questions raised in this petition, it appears necessary and expedient that operation of this order be stayed till further orders.”

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Shhanmugham, told the court the dual leadership has worked for five years, and is sought to be changed unilaterally at Palaniswamy’s instance. Singh added that 23 resolutions were to be passed at the June 23 meeting and the high court allowed those to be taken up without taking up any resolution which was not part of the agenda.

The bench asked do they restrict the council of a party to do things within the confines of its directions. “In that case, we will expand our jurisdiction later to suggest what you will decide at the meeting. These are not matters to be contested by way of interim measure.”

It said the single judge bench rightly refused to interfere with the June 23 meeting as it did not wish to act on an apprehension that the council will resolve the leadership issue. It advised Shhanmugham to resolve differences at the council meeting and not in the court. “You have to work out all your disputes at the platform of the General Council. What is bothering us is that you are a constituent of the General Council. Have everything decided there. Where is the question of judicial interference?”

The bench referred to the AIADMK’s July 11 meeting and added it may proceed in accordance with the law. It clarified in the event any suit is pending against the meeting, the pendency of the present petitions shall not be an “impediment” in passing any interim relief or necessary orders in the given circumstances of the case.