AIADMK leader O. Panneerselvam on Wednesday contended before the Madras High Court that it could entertain his plea for stalling the party’s July 11 general council since the Supreme Court had said the meeting could be conducted only in accordance with law and not otherwise.
Appearing before Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, senior counsel Guru Krishnakumar said his client, Mr. Panneerselvam, had filed a civil suit questioning the authority of the “unlawfully appointed” permanent presidium chairman, A. Tamil Magan Hussain, to call for the meeting on July 11, and therefore, the High Court could entertain such a suit.
He claimed that only the plaintiff, in his capacity as party coordinator, and the “joint coordinator” (co-coordinator), Edappadi K. Palaniswami, could together convene such a meeting as per the bylaws. The counsel also claimed that the Supreme Court had specifically permitted the High Court to deal with the present suit and grant suitable interim relief.
However, senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Mr. Palaniswami, said the Supreme Court judges had said repeatedly - at least 10 times - that courts should not interfere in the affairs of a political party. “It is the same view that your Lordship had taken when the June 23 general council meet was challenged,” he told Justice Ramasamy.
Further, stating that the arguments on the present suit were being advanced on the basis of media reports regarding the Supreme Court order, he wondered how accurate they could be. He suggested that the High Court should wait until a web copy of the Supreme Court order was uploaded on its website.
Accepting his suggestion, Justice Ramasamy decided to hear the suit on Thursday, and directed the counsel to produce the web copy [of the Supreme Court order] by then. “If the Supreme Court had permitted the July 11 meeting, why would it grant liberty to the litigants to approach the High Court, seeking a stay of the same meeting?” he wondered.
Further, referring to media reports stating that the Supreme Court had permitted Mr. Panneerselvam to approach the High Court, seeking “any other interim relief”, the judge pointed out that no other relief but the stalling of the general council meeting had been prayed for by the plaintiff before him.
Mr. Krishnakumar said he was confident of convincing the judge that the suit to stall the July 11 meeting could be entertained by him, and agreed to argue the matter in detail on Thursday.
The Supreme Court order was passed on Wednesday on an appeal preferred against an order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on June 23, with respect to the general council meeting held on that day. The web copy of the order was not available when Justice Ramasamy took up Mr. Panneerselvam’s suit for hearing in the afternoon.
