New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld the convening of the general council meeting held by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in July 2022 which declared former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) as its interim general secretary, therefore allowing him to remain at the helm of the party.
The bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, on Thursday said the manner in which the 11 July 2022 general council meeting was called cannot be declared as unwarranted or illegal at this stage.
The bench was ruling on the validity of the party’s general council meeting which had expelled senior leader O Panneerselvam (OPS) from the party, while elevating EPS as its interim general secretary. Since the passing away of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and party general secretary J Jayalalithaa in 2016, OPS was working as coordinator and EPS as joint coordinator of the party.
The bench further referred to an earlier order passed by the Madras high court on 22 June 2022 in this case to emphasize on the fact that the correct approach in such cases is that the court does not ordinarily interfere in the internal issues of a party, and lets the party and its members to take a decision for better administration.
It, however, clarified that it was not looking into the substance of the decisions taken in the meeting, but was only considering the pleas against convening of such a meeting on 11 July last year. It also clarified that none of the observations in the judgment would have any bearing on the pending civil suits between EPS and OPS.
Among other things, OPS challenged this 11 July meeting as illegal, alleging that it was held without the joint authorisation of the coordinator and the joint coordinator, and in contravention of the party bye laws. The crisis began when the proposition for amendments to the party bye-laws – essentially to revert to the system of single leadership at the apex level – was likely to come up in the meeting of the general council dated 23 June 2022.
The court pointed out that a meeting called on 23 June last year was called by the coordinator and the joint coordinator jointly, and that they had been working in tandem until that stage.
“However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately thereafter, particularly when a proposition for amendment to the byelaws and reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing,” it noted. OPS and the people supporting him were present in the June meeting.
The court then noted that since at that time, EPS and OPS were shown to be not functioning jointly, “a functional deadlock came into existence for the party and a workable solution was required to be found.”
It observed that in this case, the coordinator and the joint coordinator “do not stand in jointness and cannot act jointly”. Therefore, when a “workable solution” was found and applied, with the presidium chairman calling for the general council meeting on 11 July last year, it cannot be called unauthorized.
While the general council of the party had 2665 members, 2190 gave a requisition on 23 June for convening the general council meeting, and then the Presidium Chairman announced the date of this meeting as 22 July. The court, therefore, asserted that in such a scenario, “the actions and steps taken by the requisitioning members as also by the Presidium Chairman cannot be declared as unwarranted or illegal at this stage.”
Also Read: ‘A judge is judged every day’: SC on why it refused to intervene in Victoria Gowri’s elevation
EPS vs OPS
The Supreme Court was hearing matters related to the internal management of the main opposition in the state AIADMK. The upper levels of the party structure include the executive committee and the general council. The bye-laws of the party have been amended several times, including in 2011 and 2017. However, the party witnessed an upheaval after the death of its matriarch Jayalalithaa in December 2016 which first catapulted OPS as her successor and later EPS.
In 2017, Jayalalithaa was assigned the status of “Eternal General Secretary” of the party, while two posts — coordinator and joint coordinator — were created in the place of general secretary. The amendments to the bye-laws in 2017 established a system of joint leadership in the party whereby all decisions were to be taken jointly by the said two office-holders.
The litigation now related to the dispute between OPS, who was elected as the coordinator, and EPS, who was elected as the joint coordinator.
The July 11 meeting elected EPS as the party’s interim general secretary, reverting to single leadership, and expelled OPS from primary membership of the party.
However, a single judge bench of the Madras high court on 17 August last year ordered status quo in the AIADMK leadership as it existed before the election of EPS as the interim general secretary of the party. In the interim order, the single judge had also said that no executive council or general council meeting would be held without the joint consent of the coordinator and joint coordinator. A division bench of the high court reversed the single judge’s order in September last year.
The division bench of the high court had also noted that the single judge’s orders for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of OPS and EPS as the coordinator and the joint coordinator was leading to a situation “where the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because there was no possibility of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 – OPS and EPS – acting jointly to convene the meeting.”
The Supreme Court now opined that if the order of the single judge was to remain in force till the suits on party leadership are decided, “it would have been drastically detrimental to the interest of the political party in question, which is a recognised political party with the Election Commission of India.”
‘Entirely irrelevant considerations’
In its judgment, the Supreme Court pointed out that the single high court judge’s order was premised on several factors. The single judge had noted that as per the bye-laws of the party, the general council meeting could have been convened only by the co-ordinator and joint coordinator, and since they did not do so, the 11 July meeting was unauthorized. The high court also noted EPS, who convened the general council meeting contrary to the bye laws, “will be in a more convenient position” since OPS and a few others were removed from the party’s primary membership and they would not be able to contest in the proposed general secretary election as well.
However, the apex court now asserted that the “observations and considerations of the learned single judge…do not stand in conformity with sound judicial principles.”
It felt that the single judge’s order “traversed through such wide areas that ultimately the decision came to be based on entirely irrelevant considerations”. It noted that the question before the single judge only related to the validity of convening the 11 July meeting.
The court explained “The learned single judge expressed the view that when OPS and EPS had successfully functioned jointly as coordinator and joint coordinator, how a party, with more than 1.5 crore cadre strength, suddenly decided to change the existing dispensation. With respect, in our view, such a question was not even germane to the points for determination arising before the Court.”
“As to how any compact, be it an association or be it a political party, would manage its affairs and what alterations its governing body would consider appropriate in its rules, regulations or bye-laws, are all the matters squarely within the domain of that compact and its governing body,” it added.
(Edited by Geethalakshmi Ramanathan)
Also Read: ‘Give back livelihoods’ — newspaper ads pop up in support of Sterlite plant, shut since 2018 stir