CHENNAI: In a sudden turn of events tilting the fortunes, a division bench of the Madras High Court restrained AIADMK general council from passing any resolutions other than the 23 ones approved by the party already.
The order was passed early on Thursday by the bench consisting of Justices M Duraisamy and Sundar Mohan after a late-night hearing of appeals filed by AIADMK men including Shanmugam, a general council member, challenging a single judge’s order.
The bench allowed the general council meet to go ahead but restrained the party from passing resolutions other than the 23 ones approved and tinkering with the bylaws to restore the post of general secretary. The general council is free to discuss any other matters but cannot pass resolutions, the bench ordered. This virtually puts the brakes on the Edappadi Palaniswami camp from moving the much-touted instant resolution for abolishing the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator and bringing back the general secretary post as alleged by the petitioners.
Amid tight security, the hearing on the appeals was held at the residence of Justice Duraisamy’s residence at Anna Nagar.
Senior counsels, including Vijay Narayan and SR Rajagopal representing Palaniswami, and PH Arvindh Pandian representing O Panneerselvam, the party’s coordinator, argued their case before the bench.
On Wednesday, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, who heard the original petitions seeking to restrain the party from passing any amendments to alter the bylaws to bring back the general secretary post, refused to stay at the general council meeting and interfere with the internal affairs of amending rules, regulations, or bylaws of the party as it is left to the general council members.
“This Court, cannot imagine what would be going to take place during the general council meeting held on 23.06.2022 and issue interim orders/directions in advance,” the judge said in the order. He added, in fact, it is well settled that in matters of internal issues of an association/party, the courts normally do not interfere, leaving it open to the association/party and its members to pass resolutions and frame a particular bye-law, rule or regulation for better administration of the party.
The judge noted that since any decision comes forth among the members of the general council, it is well within their collective wisdom and this Court cannot insist the members act upon it in a particular manner.
It is for the general council and its members and its members to decide and pass resolutions and this Court cannot interfere with the process of conducting the general council meeting.
Ordering notice to the respondents, he posted the matters to July 11.