CHENNAI: Even as the supporters of Edappadi K Palaniswami are busy making arrangements for July 11 general council meeting, O Panneerselvam, on Monday, furnished a detailed report to the Chief Election Commissioner of India under Section 20(A) of the Representation of People’s Act. He gave details about the “flaws” in the GC meeting held on June 23 and described the headquarters office-bearers’ meet held on Monday as illegal.
OPS’ counsel told reporters that he continues as the coordinator of the party since the amendment that the coordinator and joint-oordinator should be elected only by the primary members of the party came into force on December 1, 2021. As such, ratification by the GC is only a custom and not mandatory. Each political party has to submit a report to the EC after the meeting and accordingly, as AIADMK coordinator, OPS has furnished the report.
In a nine-page report submitted to the EC, Panneerselvam gave explained what had happened since the creation of posts of coordinator and joint-coordinator on September 12, 2017, and later, how the bylaw of the party was amended on December 2, 2021, to elect both leaders through a single vote. He said the election was completed on December 6 and elections to the rest of the party posts were held later and intimated to the EC.
Referring to the petitions filed regarding the June 23 GC and the orders of the single judge as well as the division bench of the HC, Panneerselvam said, contrary to the directive of the HC that apart from the already-approved 23 resolutions, no more should be adopted, a resolution was moved by the joint-coordinator for electing the presidium chairman of the party. It was not informed to him as coordinator of the party.
As per the practice, a printed book of resolutions to be tabled should be furnished to all the members of the GC. However, Panneerselvam said, on June 23, the GC members were not given copies of the 23 resolutions approved by the coordinator and joint-coordinator.
“Only one copy of the resolutions was given to the coordinator. On perusal, it was found that resolution no. 1 was completely new and altered, compared to that submitted before the Division Bench of the HC which was approved by me,” he added.
Panneerselvam added that CVe Shanmugam had raised his voice by saying all the resolutions were rejected by the GC members. “Shanmugam had said the members rejected the resolutions without discussing,” OPS said. He also alleged that unauthorised persons who were not members of the GC were allowed in the meeting. They were permitted with some vested interests, which was against the HC’s direction.