While clearing the decks for the AIADMK general council meeting just minutes before it began on Monday, the Madras High Court heavily criticised its leader O. Panneerselvam (since expelled) for attempting to prevent the will of the majority from being implemented.
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy dismissed applications filed by Mr. Panneerselvam and another general council member, P. Vairamuthu, to stall the meeting. He held that intra-party affairs such as the election of a leader and the amendment of bylaws are a "no go area" for courts because such matters are non-justiciable.
"In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail. The general rule is that during a difference among members, the majority decides an issue. If the majority exercises it's powers in internal administration, courts will not interfere into the wisdom of the majority. The matter at hand is an intra-party affair," he said.
The judge also observed that any dispute between individual members of the party and those responsible for its management must be decided by the machinery provided by its bylaws and not in a court of law. In the present case, the applicants had tried to use the court as a tool because they lacked support from party members.
"It is very unfortunate that a leader, in the capacity of Coordinator (Mr. Panneerselvam), has time and again rushed to this court seeking interference instead of participating in the general council and introducing his ideas and plans towards the welfare of the party so as to gain the confidence of the members," the judge observed.
He went on to state: "What the applicant could not achieve (on his own), he wants to achieve through the court of law and the court will certainly refrain from interfering with the private affairs of the party and not get dragged into it at the instance of just one or two members as against the interests of thousands of other members of the party."
Concurring with senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Edappadi K. Palaniswami (now the party’s interim general secretary), that the authority to amend the bylaws of the party ‘undoubtedly’ vests with the general council, the judge said the applicants had not made out any case for the court to stall the general council meeting.
Further, pointing out that the Supreme Court had, on July 6, while passing interim orders on an appeal related to the June 23 general council meeting, explicitly permitted the July 11 meeting to proceed in accordance with law, Justice Krishnasamy said he was not inclined to take a divergent view and stall the meeting.
Though the applicants had claimed that only the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator (Co-Coordinator) could convene the general council meeting, the judge agreed with Mr. Narayan that the two posts became non-functional on June 23 since the general council did not ratify the executive council's December 2021 decision relating to those posts.
Rejecting yet another ground raised by the applicants, Justice Krishnasamy said the bylaws do not require a written notice to be issued 15 days before the general council. Therefore, the oral announcement made at the June 23 general council regarding the conduct of the next meeting on July 11 would be perfectly valid, he added.
