Manoj pandian admk case affidavit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
O.A.No. 164 of 2023
C. S. No. 47 of 2023
Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H.Manoj Pandian,
s/o Late P.H.Pandian,
Christian, aged about 51 years,
L-10, 3rd Floor, 26th Street,
Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600102. …Applicant/Plaintiff
1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Rep. by its Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator
Having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600014.
2. General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam represented by its Presidium Chariman
Having office at No 226/275,
Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600014.
3. Thiru . O.Pannerselvam,
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600014.
4. Thiru. Edappadi K.Palaniswami,
Joint Co Ordinator/ Head Quarter Secretary,
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600014. …Respondents/Defendants
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PAUL MANOJ PANDIAN
@ P.H.MANOJ PANDIAN
I, Paul Manoj Pandian @ P.H.Manoj Pandian, Son of Late P.H.Pandian, Christian, aged about 51 years and residing at L-10, 3rd Floor, 26th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600102 and solemnly and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am the applicant/plaintiff in the above said matter and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. I submit that I am an active primary member of the political party “All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam” from the year 1993 which the respondent No.1 in the suit. My current Membership number is 48-6. The Headquarters Party office of the respondent No.1 is in Avvai Shanmugam Salai in Royapettah within the jurisdiction of this Hon`ble Court. I submit that I have been issued with a membership ID card by the respondent No.1 and I am continuing as an active primary member of the first respondent party for more than 30 years. I submit that I am also a member of the privilege committee of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. I am presently holding the post of Deputy Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam legislature party in the assembly. I am also organizing secretary of the first respondent party and I am also a member of the Advisory Committee. I submit that I am also a practicing Advocate of this Hon’ble Court.I submit that I was member of Legislative Assembly elected from Cheranmadevi in 2001.I was also nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the year 2010. And had been for a tenure of Six Years.
3. I submit that I am the present Member of the Legislative Assembly, TamilNadu, having been elected from the Alankulam Constituency, Tenkasi District in the year 2021 Tamilnadu State Elections by the ticket issued to me to contest by the First Defendant. I submit that I contributed to Society and I have done several works which are public oriented. I submit that I had built several Schools, Water Tanks, Kalyana Mandapams etc., and have laid several roads etc., as a public representative in Tirunelveli District. I submit that I have been instrumental in the establishment of Electricity Board Sub-Stations in two villages namely Govindaperi and Odakarai Thulukapatti in Tirunelveli District and I introduced various welfare schemes in the places comprising of the downtrodden people by providing them with the basic amenities in Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency from the year 2001 till date.
4. I submit that the 1st Respondent was formed in the year 1972 by Late.Puratchi Thalaivar. Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and that 1st Respondentis a registered and recognized Political Party with the Election Commission of India. I submit that the 1st Respondent is governed by its bye-laws. The lawful and valid bye-laws of the 1st Respondentare filed along with the Plaint and I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to treat the same as part and parcel of the Plaint.
5. I submit that the 1st Respondent is a political party registered with the Election Commission in consonance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Rules of the Election Commission of India. I submit that the Rules of Election Commission of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provide that the organizational structure of the political party should follow the democratic process. The objects of the AIADMK party has been defined in Rule 1 (b), 2 and 3 of the Party rules and regulations, which read as follows:
i. In rule 1(b) under the head “Origin”, it has been incorporated as follows:
The AIADMK has been founded on the 17th day of October 1972 by PURATCHI THALAIVAR Dr.M.G.R to promote and implement the ideas of late lamented leader Dr. ANNA for establishing a classless, casteless, nationalist; rationalist, socialist society through democratic process within the framework of the Constitution of India.
ii. Rule 2 states the policy of the party which reads as follows:
The ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of Socialism, Secularism and Democracy and will uphold the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India.
The party will strive to create equality among all classes and to establish a democratic socialist society, to promote the language and culture of Dravidians to strengthen the democratic system and to strive for more autonomous powers for states in the Indian Sub-Continent subject to overall sovereignty of the center without jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the Nation in accordance with the Constitution of India.
6. I submit that the Original Constitution of the 1st Respondent Party, called the Rules and Regulations which was framed on 17.12.1972 as per Guidelines prescribed by the Election Commission of India under Section 29-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
In the Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st RespondentRule 19 provides for a General Council Rule 19 is reproduced hereunder.
General Council of the Central Organisation
i. The General Council of the AIADMK shall consist of the Chairman. General Secretary, Deputy General Secretaries, Treasurer, Headquarters Secretaries of the Party, the members of the Central Executive Committee, the members of the General Council elected from the Districts and other States, the Members of the Audit Committee, Property Protection Committee, and the Parliamentary Board. The General Council shall be the Supreme body of the Party with all powers of the Kazhagam.
iii. The General Council members shall be elected from each District Kazhagam in such numbers equivalent to the total number of Assembly Constituencies in the respective district. In respect of other States including Pondicherry, the number of the General Council members will be determined by the General Secretary with reference to the total number of members registered in the respective State Kazhagam.
iv. The General Secretary of the Party can nominate not exceeding 100 Members to the General Council of the Central Organisation from among the members of the Party.
vii. The General Council Meeting shall be convened once in a year or whenever it is considered necessary by the General Secretary by giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of meeting.
The quorum for the meeting shall be one-fifth of the total number of members of the General Council. If one-fifth of the members of the General Council request the General Secretary to convene the Special Meeting of the General Council, the General Secretary should do so within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition.
Rule 20 of the said Byelaws provides for a General Secretary of the 1st Respondentparty.
i. The General Secretary of the Party will be responsible for the entire administration of the Party.
ii. The General Secretary shall be elected by the Primary Members of all the Party units of Tamil Nadu and the Members of the Party in other States like Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Andaman island.
iii. The General Secretary can nominate from among the Primary Members of the Party one or more Deputy General Secretaries and the Treasurer and as many Headquarters Secretaries as are needed for administrative convenience.
iv. The General Secretary will constitute the Executive Committee of the Central Organization consisting of the General Secretary, Deputy General Secretaries, Chairman, Treasurer, Headquarters Secretaries, District Secretaries and the nominated members.
v. The members of the Central Executive Committee, the Deputy General Secretaries, Treasurer and the Headquarters Secretaries nominated by the General Secretary will hold the office during the tenure of the office of the General Secretary.
If for any reason the post of General Secretary becomes vacant in between the office bearers who were nominated by the previous General Secretary will hold office and continue to function till the new General Secretary is elected and assumes office.
vi. The General Secretary of the Party shall have the powers and responsibilities to convene the Executive and the General Council Meetings, to implement policies and programs of the part, as decided by the General and Executive Councils, to conduct elections and by elections for Party Organisations, to examine the accounts of all the Party units through the Audit Committee, to manage by self and through the Treasurer the income and expenditure of the Party organizations at all levels, to manage the Party Office, movable and immovable properties of the Party, to represent the Party in the legal proceedings that may arise in respect of Party properties and to take necessary legal steps on behalf of the Party to protect them.
The General Secretary will preside over the Party conferences take all kinds of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Party rules against the Party units and its office bearers who violate the Party rules, regulations or act against the Party interest, party discipline, policies and programmes, including immediate suspension of any Party unit or office bearer. The General Secretary shall be the supreme authority to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings recommended by the Party units and shall have over all powers to take all steps to promote and preserve the Party policies and programmes and to develop and protect the Party Organizations.
The General Secretary is empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on important political events, policies and programmes of urgent nature which cannot brook delay and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. Such decisions and actions have to be ratified by the General Council in its next meeting. However, it is open to the General Secretary to obtain the views of the General Council Members on such urgent matters by post when the Council is not in session.
vii. The General Secretary is empowered to deposit the funds of the AIADMK in any of the legally constituted Banks of Financial Institutions either in Current Accounts or Fixed Deposits, to withdraw such funds and to operate the accounts on behalf of the Party. The General Secretary is also empowered to obtain loans for the Party purposes from the above mentioned institutions on the security of the assets of the Party and to do all that is necessary in this regard for and on behalf of the Party.
viii. The General Secretary is vested with powers to authorize the Treasurer of the Party to operate on his behalf the Bank Accounts namely to deposit or to withdraw funds, and also in respect of duties mentioned in sub-rule (vii) of this Rule.
ix. The State Unit of Tamil Nadu shall be under the direct control of the General Secretary. Three shall be no separate General Secretary for Tamil Nadu.
x. If the General Secretary so desires he can nominate a Deputy Secretary exclusively a look after the Party administration work of Tamil Nadu.
xi. The Authorisation Forms addressed to the Election Officers for the allotment of the Two Leaves Symbol to the candidates contesting on behalf of the AIADMK shall be signed only by General Secretary.
xii. The General Secretary is vested with the right to nominate Joint Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries, in case of need to Branch units, Union, Town, Township and District Units and other state units, besides elected functionaries. Moreover, the General Secretary also is vested with the Powers to nominate women in the posts, to compensate and give due representation to women if in any of the party units at any level, women are not elected to one third of the posts.
Rule 25 : Central Executive Committee
i. The party Executive Committee will function with the following office bearers. They are the General Secretary Deputy General Secretary, Presidium Chairman, Treasurer, Headquarters Secretaries, Election Wing Secretary, Party Progpaganda Secretary, Legal Consultant, Party Legislative Assembly Committee Consultant, Party Organizational Secretaries, All India M.G.R. Manram Secretary, Puratchi Thalavi Peravai Secretary, M.G.R. Youth Wing Secretary, Women’s Wing Secretary, Students’ Wing Secretary, Ann Thozhir Sangam Secretary Advocates Wing Secretary Minorities Welfare Wing Secretary, Agriculture Wing Secretary, Fisheries Wing Secretary, Medical Wing Secretary and Literary Wing Secretary. All the above shall be recognized as the Party’s Executive Committee Members. If the representation of the women in the total number of Executive Committee Members is less than one-third, women members shall be nominated by the General Secretary.
ii. Unless it could not be convened for valid reasons, the Central Executive Committee shall meet once in six months. If found necessary, the AIADMK General Secretary an convene the meeting at any time.
Rule 43 : Amendments
The General Council will have powers to frame, amend or delete any of the Rules of the Party Constitution. But the rule that the General Secretary should be elected only by all the Primary members of the party cannot be changed or amended since it forms the basic structure of the Party.
Rule 45 : Authorisation to General Secretary
The General Secretary is fully authorized to relax or make exceptions to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party.
7. I respectfully submit that the Respondent No.1 is a major political party in the State of Tamil Nadu and for the past many decades, the Common People of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry have been attracted towards the Policies, Objects and the ideas of the Founder Dr.M.G.Ramachandran and his successor Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa of the 1st Respondent Party and reposed confidence in the 1st Respondent party and elected it to power for several tenures. Several Lakhs of People voluntarily joined the 1st Respondent party. The 1st Respondent Party was in Power from 1977 to 1987 under the leadership of the founder Puratchi Thalaivar Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. After the death of the founder on 24.12.1987, there was a dispute and the 1st Respondent Party split into two factions. I submit that the Election Commission of India had frozen the 1st Respondent Party Symbol Two Leaves. Both factions contested the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly General Election 1989 under Mrs.V.N.Janaki Ramachandran and Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa respectively in different Symbols. Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa faction got 27 seats and whereas Mrs.V.N.Janaki Ramachandran faction got only 1 seat. Both factions united in 1989.
8. I respectfully submit that after lot of struggles, tests and turmoils the 1st Respondent won a massive landslide victory in the State under leadership of Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa in the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly General Elections 1991 and formed Government in Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa was elected as the General Secretary in the Intra Party Election during 1993 by the Primary Members of the 1st Respondent Party as per provisions of the Rule.20 (ii) of the Original Constitution / Rules and Regulations which reads, “The General Secretary shall be elected by the Primary members of all the Party Units of Tamil Nadu and the Members of Party in other States like Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Andaman Islands”. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent Party was in Power in Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly General Election during the year 2001, 2011 and 2016 under the leadership Late.Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa.
9. I respectfully submit that I was attracted by the Leaders and objects of the 1st Respondent Party, and its Dravidian and democratic ideology and pattern of politics joined the 1st Respondent Party. I am the Primary Member of the 1st Respondent Party from the year 1993.
10. I submit that after sudden demise of Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa on 05.12.2016, the third Respondent who was a MLA was made the Chief Minister of the State by the legislative members of the 1st Respondent party. On the Death of the General Secretary, as per bye law the office bearers who were nominated by the Former General Secretary should continue to function and manage the Party till a new General Secretary is elected by the Primary Members of the party. Thereafter, the Party top brass instead of organizing Election to select a new General Secretary as per provisions of the Rule 20 (ii) of the 1st Respondent Party Original Constitution/Rules and Regulations, convened the General Council on 29.12.2016, as per Rule.20 (vi) of the 1st Respondent Party Original Constitution/Rules and Regulations, Convening General Council and the Executive Committee is the domain of the General Secretary. The General Council dated 29.12.2016 unanimously appointed Smt.V.K.Sasikala, as Interim General Secretary and assigned powers of the General Secretary to Smt.V.K.Sasikala who assumed office of the General Secretary on 30.12.2016 which was informed to the Election Commission of India vide letter dated 31.12.2016. In this Situation, Shri.K.C.Palanisamy, Former Member of Parliament on 20.01.2017, then Presidium Chairman Late. Shri.E.Madhusudhanan on 10.02.2017, Members of Parliament on 12.02.2017 and another on 15.02.2017, submitted a Petition before the Election Commission of India stating that the alleged nomination of Smt.V.K.Sasikala by the General Council on 29.12.2016 as the Interim General Secretary is not accordance to provisions under Rule. 19 (viii), 20 (ii) and 43 of the 1st Respondent Party Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulation. The General Secretary has to be elected by the Primary Members of the 1st Respondent Party.
11. I submit that on 05.02.2017 the Third Respondent suddenly resigned from the post of the Chief Minister of the state.
12. I submit that the Fourth Respondent was originally an ardent and a Staunch supporter and loyalist of the said Smt.V.K.Sasikala and a leading member of her faction in the 1st Respondent party.
13. I submit that due to certain complications faced by the said Smt.V.K.Sasikala who aspired to become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu which are not Germane for the purposes of this suit, she handpicked and selected the Fourth Respondent to be made as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The 1st Respondent party at that juncture accepted the Fourth Respondent herein as the Chief Minister.
14. Thus, in the above scenario the fourth Respondent was sworn in as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 16.02.2017. The said Smt.V.K.Sasikala was convicted in a criminal case by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 14.02.2017 and she eventually went to prison to serve her sentences of four years imprisonment in the central prison at Bangalore in Karnataka in 2017.
15. I submit that thereafter the Third Respondent and the Fourth Respondent headed separate and warring factions of the 1st Respondent party in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly which witnessed acrimonious scenes in the Legislative Assembly and opposed and acted against each other. Finally the Fourth Respondent with the support base of the said Smt.V.K.Sasikala somehow demonstrated his majority in the floor of the Assembly and formed the Government of the State.
16. In these circumstances, the by-election to the R.K.Nagar Legislative Constituency of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was notified in May 2017 and both the above factions fielded candidates and contested against each other.
17. I respectfully submit that thereafter, Shri.E.Madhusudhanan, the former Presidium Chairman of the 1st Respondent and one Shri.Semmalai filed a Petition on 16.03.2017 before the Election Commission to recognise their faction headed by the Third Respondent to use the Name and Two Leaves Symbol of the 1st Respondent Party as against appointed Interim General Secretary Smt.V.K.Sasikala faction which was headed by the Fourth Respondent herein. The Election Commission of India passed an interim order on 22.03.2017 in Dispute Case No.2 of 2017, freezing the 1st Respondent party Symbol Two Leaves and prohibited both the above rival factions using the 1st Respondent Party Name and Two Leaves Symbol during the pendency of the dispute. I submit that the R.K. Nagar by election was contested by the groups headed by the said factions in different names and symbols. However, the said election was countermanded on 09.04.2017. I submit that the Fourth Respondent herein who was spearheading the faction of Smt.V.K.Sasikala suddenly switched over loyalty and sprang to the faction of the Third Respondent with more than 90% of District Secretaries, General Council Members and Legislative Assembly Members on 21.08.2017 and joined the said faction and filed a Petition to implead himself in the Dispute Case No.2 of 2017 which added numerical strength to Shri.E.Madhusudhanan faction over Smt.V.K.Sasikala faction as a result of which the said Smt.V.K.Sasikala was sidelined and marginalized.
18. I respectfully submit that thereafter both the factions conducted a meeting of the General Council on 12.09.2017 which totally passed 12 Resolutions and amended the 1st Respondent party’s Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulation. The Resolution No.7 declared Late. Dr.Miss.J.Jayalalithaa as eternal General Secretary. The Resolution No.8 removed Smt.V.K.Sasikala from the post of Interim General Secretary and the Post of Interim General Secretary was abolished. The Resolution No.10 created new posts viz. One Coordinator, One Joint Coordinator and two Deputy Coordinators and appointed the third Respondent as Coordinator, Fourth Respondent as Joint Coordinator. Resolution No.11 assigned all the Administrative powers of the General Secretary to the newly created Coordinator and Joint Coordinator jointly. Resolution No.12 amended the Constitution of the 1st Respondent Party. Rule 43 which was part of the basic structure of the 1st Respondent was amended providing for election of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator by the General Council.
19. I submit that as per Rule 20(5) of the Byelaws/Constitution of the 1st Respondent if a General Secretary’s post becomes vacant the office bearers appointed by the former General Secretary will administer the party till the new General Secretary is elected as per the Byelaws/Constitution of the 1stdefendant.
20. I submit that in the said meeting, the following resolutions among others were passed
1) Abolishing the post of General Secretary (Resolution No.7).
2) Creating the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator to assume the power of the General Secretary (Resolution No.10).
3) Conferring all administration powers on Coordinator/Joint Coordinator.
4) Amending Rule Nos.5, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 41-A, 41-B, 41-C, 41-D, 41-E, 41-F, 42, 43, 44 & 45.
All these amendments were brought to accommodate the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator in the place of the General Secretary and Rules 20A to C were added for the same purpose. Under rule 20 C an Advisory Committee was formed in and by which I had been appointed as its member.
21. I respectfully submit that a then sitting MLA of the 1st Respondent Party, a supporter of Smt.V.K.Sasikala faction Shri. Vetrivel, filed a Civil Suit in CS No. 707 of 2017 (P.Vetrivel Vs E.Madhusudhanan & Others) before this Hon’ble Court for a permanent injunction to conduct the General Council Meeting dated 12.09.2017. The petition for injunction filed by him was dismissed on 11.09.2017. In appeal in OSA.No.244 of 2017 (P.Vetrivel Vs E.Madhusudhanan & Others) against order dated 11.09.2017, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court agreed with the decision of the Learned Single Judge and held that any decision of the General Council Meeting dated 12.09.2017 will be subject to the final outcome in the appeal.
22. I submit that finally, the Election Commission of India by order dt.23.11.2017 recognized the faction under the aforementioned Shri.E.Madhusudhanan faction ahead of Smt.V.K.Sasikala, faction. Even thereafter, the 1st Respondent didn’t organise an Election to elect a General Secretary by the Primary Members as pleaded before the Election Commission of India in the Dispute Case No.2 of 2017. The Election Commission of India on 04.05.2018 had taken the amended Constitution of the 1st Respondent Party on file based on the requisition dated 16.04.2018 of the third and fourth Defendants.
23. I respectfully submit that the Respondents in Dispute Case No. 2 of 2017, Smt.V.K.Sasikala and Shri.T.T.V.Dhinakaran challenged the final order dated 23.11.2017 in W.P.(C).No.10725 of 2017 and in W.P.(C).No.10728 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions and made certain observations regarding the way in which the affairs of the Party is conducted. I submit that Smt.V.K.Sasikala and Shri.T.T.V.Dhinakaran filed SLPs before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.6621 of 2019 and SLP (C) No.6673 of 2019 which were dismissed on 26.03.2019 and subsequent Review Petitions were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
24. I submit that the aforesaid Shri.Vetrivel also left the 1st Respondent Party and joined in another Political Party. Hence, Shri.Vetrivel lost his legal right and locus standi to pursue OSA.No.244 of 2017 on the file of this Hon`ble Court. Moreover, Shri.Vetrivel died on 15.10.2020.
25. I submit that in the light of the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, some members of the 1st Respondent sent requisitions on 25.03.2019 to the 1st Respondent Party to conduct Election for the General Secretary in the light of the provisions of the Rule 20 (ii), Rule 43 and 45 of the Party Original Constitution/the Rules and Regulation. I submit that the 3rd and 4th respondents agreed to conduct the Intra Party Elections on or before 31.12.2021 to the Election Commission of India which was actually due in 2019. Moreover, the dispensation in the 1st Respondent continuously removed the Party Cadres, who opposed them and demanded to conduct the Election for the post of the General Secretary as contemplated in the constitution of the 1st defendant.
26. In the circumstances and scenario afore described the Executive Council of the 1st Respondent Party was held on 01.12.2021. The aforesaid Executive Committee dated 01.12.2021 passed a Special Resolution and amended the Party Constitution. According to the Constitution/Rules and Regulations the Executive Committee has no power to amend any Rules of the Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant.
The following were the amendments to the Constitution/Byelaws amended in the Executive Committee Meeting of the 1st Respondentdt.1.12.2021.
Rule 20(A) Coordinator and Joint Coordinator
The Coordinator and Joint Coordinator shall be elected by Primary Members of the Party. Further, both the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator shall be jointly elected by the Primary Members of the Party By way of a Single Vote.
Rule 43 Amendments
The General Council will have powers to frame, amend or delete any of the Rules of the Party Constitution. But the Rule that the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator should be elected only by all the Primary members of the party cannot be changed or amended or altered since it forms the basic structure of the Party.
45. Authorisation to Coordinator and Joint Coordinator
The Coordinator and Joint Coordinator are fully authorized to relax or make alterations to any of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Party. But the Rule that the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator should be elected only by all the Primary Members of the Party cannot be relaxed or altered since it forms the basic structure of the Party.
27. I submit that according to amended Constitution of the Executive Committee, the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator have to be elected jointly, by the Primary members by a single vote. Further the General Council has the power to pass – amend- remove the byelaw of the party. However, the election of the Party Coordinator and Joint Coordinator posts which have been created, reflecting the basic sentiment of this byelaw can only be done by the Primary members of the party and it cannot be amended. I submit that the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator have absolute power to relax or exclude any Rule of the above stated Rules of the byelaw which came to force immediately from 01.12.2021 and it was decided in the Executive Committee meeting that the reatification will be taken in the next meeting of the General Council.
Subsequently, on 02.12.2021, an Election Schedule for the post of the Party Coordinator and Joint Coordinator was announced and further elections for the posts of Party Village Branch Secretaries, Party Municipality Ward Secretaries, Party District Ward Secretaries and Party Corporation Ward Secretaries in Tamil Nadu was announced by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the party to take place on different dates from 13.12.2021 to 25.04.2022.
28. I submit that according to schedule, for the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator, Date of Nomination is 03.12.2021 and 04.12.2021, Date of Scrutinising – 05.12.2021, Date of Return of Nomination – 06.12.2021, Election Date – 07.12.2021 and Counting and Announcement of Results – 08.12.2021.
29. I submit that one Mr.Ponniyan and another Mr.Pollachi Jayaraman were appointed as Election Commissioners to conduct the elections for the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the 1st respondent. The said two purported Election Commissioners called for nominations for candidates aspiring to contest for the posts of Coordinator, Joint Coordinator of the 1st respondent. The said Election Commissioners issued a notification inviting the aforesaid nominations on 2.12.2021. Till 05.12.2021 only the third respondent and fourth respondent filed nomination for the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator in a single nomination form. Therefore, on 05.12.2021 the aforesaid Election Commissioners declared the third and fourth respondents elected as the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the 1st respondent respectively. The said Election electing third and fourth respondents as Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the first respondent was communicated to the Election Commission on 13.12.2021.
30. I submit that the third and fourth respondents conducted the elections for the other organizational unit posts. The organizational unit elections of the Respondent No.1 were completed by the respondents 2 & 3 on 25.4.2022. The results of the organizational elections were communicated to the Election Commission on 29.4.2022 by the third and fourth respondents.
31. I submit that thereafter the 3rd and 4th respondents issued a notice dated 02.06.2022 convening the meeting of the Executive Council and General Council of the 1st Respondent on 23.6.2022 at the Srivaru Venkatachalapathy Palace Mandapam at Vanagaram. This was primarily to get the ratification of the Executive Committee’s Resolution dt.1.12.2021 and the elections of the third and fourth defendants and the other organizational unit posts of the 1st Respondents ratified and approved among the other resolutions to be passed.
32. I submit that thereafter disputes arose between the 3rd and 4th respondents in respect of the administration of the 1st Respondent and other political issues. One Mr.M.Shanmugam, a member of the General Council of the 1st Respondent filed a suit in this Hon`ble Court in C.S.No.111 of 2022 to restrain the conduct of the meeting aforesaid on 23.6.2022 on the ground that no agenda had been circulated. He also filed an application for injunction. In the said injunction application the learned single judge of this Hon`ble Court refused to injunct the said meeting on 23.6.2022. Aggrieved against which the said Mr.Shanmugam filed OSA No.160 of 2022 and the division bench of this Hon`ble Court passed an order directing that the said meeting dated 23.06.2022 can go on but only the agenda of 23 items already approved by the Coordinator of the first respondent should be discussed and decided and no decision should be taken in respect of any other matter though they can be discussed.
33. I submit that the meeting 23.06.2022 was conducted but the General Council rejected all the proposals contained in the agenda for the aforesaid meeting. The proposal to approve the election of the 3rd and 4th respondents as Joint Coordinator and Coordinator of the 1st Respondent and the election of other organization unit office bearers constituting the General Council of its party were also rejected in the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022.
34. I submit that the fourth respondent’s faction demanded another General Council meeting and the Presidium chairman of that meeting announced the next General council meeting of the 1st Respondent on 11.7.2022.
35. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 06.07.2022, in S.L.P.(C) No.11237 of 2022, filed by the fourth Respondent and others stayed the operation of the order of the Division Bench of this Court made in C.M.P. No.9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022, dated 23.06.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed that the order of the Division Bench that had placed restrictions on the Agenda to be discussed in the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022. Further the Hon’ble Supreme court also permitted the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 to proceed in accordance with law.
36. I submit that in the meanwhile, C.S.No.118 of 2022 was filed by the 3rd Respondent herein before this Hon`ble Court for the following reliefs:-
a) For a Declaration that convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date, without the joint authorization of both Co-Ordinator and Joint Co- Ordinator is illegal, and in contravention to the Bye-Laws of the 1st Defendant Party, more particularly, Rule 20A(iv) and 20A(v) of the rules and regulations of AIADMK Party.
b) For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date without the express authorization of both the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co- Ordinator
c) the Costs; and
d) to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
37. I submit that further a suit in C.S.No.119 of 2022 was filed by the first respondent Party Member before this Hon`ble Court for the following reliefs:-
a) For a Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date, without the express authorization of both Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator.
b) For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants or any other office bearer of the Party to convene the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other dated without giving its Members, a 15 days’ notice in advance as contemplated in the rules of the 1st defendant party
c) the costs; and
d) And to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
38. I submit that in C.S.No.118 of 2022, the 3rd Respondent herein filed an Application in O.A.No.368 of 2022 seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the fourth Respondent and others from convening a General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date without the express authorization of both the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator of the 1st Respondent herein, pending disposal of the suit.
39. I submit that in C.S.No.119 of 2022, the 3rd Respondent herein filed an Original Application in O.A.No.370 of 2022, seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd Respondent and others from convening the General Council Meeting of the 1st Respondent herein scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022. By order dated 11.07.2022, the learned Single Judge, dismissed all the applications aforesaid.
40. I submit that as against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.A.Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022, the 3rd Respondent herein preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, by its order dated 29.07.2022, directed this Hon`ble Court to reconsider the matter afresh without being influenced by the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.07.2022 and 29.07.2022 and remitted the applications to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration.
41. I submit that after remand by order dated 17.08.2022, the Learned Single Judge of this Hon`ble Court taking into consideration the case of both the parties disposed of the Original Applications in O.A.Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022 with the following directions:-
i. There shall be an order of status quo ante as on 23.06.2022.
ii. There shall be no Executive Council meeting or General Council meeting without joint consent of the Co-ordinator Thiru. O.Panneerselvam and Joint Co-ordinator Thiru. Edappadi K.Palaniswami.
iii. There shall be no impediment for the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator on their own to convene the General Council Meeting jointly to decide the affairs of the party including amendment of the party constitution restoring Single leadership.
iv. If a proper representation from not less than 1/5th members of the total members of the General Council is received, the Co- ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator shall not refuse to convene the General Council meeting.
v. The General Council meeting, on such requisition shall be convened within 30 days from the date of receipt of the requisition and it shall be held after 15 days advance Notice given in writing.
vi. In case, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator are of the opinion that, for any reason further direction is required for conducting the General Council meeting or need assistance of Commissioner for conducting the meeting, it is open for them to approach this Court and seek necessary relief.
42. I submit that as against the aforesaid order the fourth Respondent herein filed OSA Nos. 227, 231 & 232 of 2022 in this Hon`ble Court and the Hon`ble Division Bench of this Hon`ble Court allowed the OSAs and set aside the order of the Single Judge in the Original Application in O.A. No.368 of 2022 in C.S. No.118 of 2022 and the Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 370 and 379 of 2022 in C.S.No. 119 of 2022 and consequently, the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 were dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs in C.S.No.118/2022 & 119/2022 filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 23.02.2023 confirm the order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and held that the challenge in the suit is only the legality of the convening of General Council Meeting dated 11.07.2022 and held that the convening of meeting on 11.07.2022 was proper. It further held that in the interest of justice, left all the related aspects concerning the said resolutions open to be agitated, but strictly in accordance with law.
43. I further submit that during the pendency of the said SLP, the fourth Respondent herein filed an application for impleading the Election Commission of India and also sought a prayer that the Resolution passed on 11.07.2022 and amendments made to the bye-laws of the first Respondent should be taken on record by the Election Commission. While disposing the above said SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to deal with the impleading applications and left open to approach the appropriate forum if any legal grievance exists. I further submit that for the impleading application the Election Commission of India filed a counter affidavit in and by which it has stated that the resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 and the amended bye-laws were not taken on record in view of the litigations pending between the parties and thus confirmed that as on today as per the Election Commission of India records the first respondent has been only represented by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator i.e. third and fourth respondents.
44. I submit that on 11.7.2022, the General Council meeting of the 1st Respondent took place at the same venue by the fourth respondent’s faction and several resolutions were passed in the said meeting. In the said General Council, among other things a resolution was passed abolishing the post of coordinator and Joint coordinator. The post of General Secretary was revived and the 2nd Respondent was elected as interim General Secretary. A resolution was passed to issue notification for election of the General Secretary and appointment of Election Officers. A resolution was also passed that the 1st Respondent party would come under single leadership.
45. I submit that in the meeting of the General Council of the 1st Respondent dated 11/7/22 the byelaws of the 1st Respondent were extensively amended. The following byelaws were amended in the manner stated infra by the following resolutions.
Resolution No 3:
1. The byelaws which were amended on 01.12.2021 by the Executive Committee of the party was rejected.
2. The acts done by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator including the elections for the office bearers and General Council Members of the party were declared as valid.
3. The post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were abolished and the post of General Secretary was reinstated.
4. The following byelaws were amended, deleted and altered.
a. Rule No.20 was deleted
b. The word Coordinator and Joint Coordinator was replaced with the word General Secretary. Likewise the word Deputy Coordinator were replaced with Deputy General Secretary.
c. Rule 20A (1) was replaced in the following Rule wherein qualifications to contest for the post of General Secretary a member should be a continuous member for a period of ten years and he should have held the post of the head quarters office bearer for a continuous period of five years.
d. With the above said qualification the candidate should be proposed atleast by ten District Secretaries and should be selected by ten District Secretaries and a District Secretary can propose and select only one candidate.
5. Rule 20A (2) was amended to the effect that General Secretary of the Kazhagam shall be elected by the primary members of the party.
6. Rule 20AA was amended to the effect that the party Deputy General Secretary shall be appointed by Party General Secretary.
7. Rule 20C which provided for an advisory committee and the members to be selected/nominated by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were deleted.
8. Rule 43 – General Secretary should be elected by a primary members of the party. However, no change as to the condition that only primary member as to elect General Secretary cannot be amended.
9. Rule 45 – General Secretary should be elected by a primary members of the party. However, no change as to that clause. General Secretary has power to amend any aforesaid byelaws and rules. However, the Rule 43 condition that General Secretary to be cleared by primary members cannot be amended altered or relaxed.
I submit that the post of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were created by virtue of Resolution dated 12.09.2017 and the amended byelaws as approved by the Election Commission of India for a period of five years and therefore, the 3rd and 4th respondents are continue to be in the said post till December 2026.The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble in O.S.A.No.227 of 2022 also observed that whether the said posted lapsed or not can be decided in the pending suits.
I further submit that the Resolution 3 passed as the purported General Council meeting dt. 11.07.2022 is premised on the following assumptions that are clearly incorrect both factually:
• The first erroneous assumption is apparent from the portion of Resolution 3 which states as follows:
“As the byelaws amended in the Executive Committee Meeting convened on 1.12.2021 were not placed for the approval of the General Body during the general body meeting held on 23.06.2022, the above amendment had expired automatically”.
The plaintiff states that this assumption is completely unsubstantiated both in facts and law. There is no provision in the byelaws of the 1st Defendant which envisages that amendments approved at meetings of the Executive Committee will automatically lapse in circumstances where the same have not even been placed before the General Body for debate, discussion, and vote. Moreover, it is for the Defendants to explain why the draft Resolution approved by the Coordinator, which clearly envisaged that the General Council meeting of 23.06.2022 was to consider a vote on the amendment, was never placed before the General Council for vote on that date. For reasons best known to the Joint Coordinator the said draft resolution was mischievously altered on the day of the said meeting and a different version was placed. Furthermore, the manner in which the said General Council meeting of 23.06.2022 was conducted was completely contrary to the byelaws of the Party and therefore nothing that happened or did not happen in the said meeting can have any legal ramifications whatsoever.
• The second erroneous assumption in Resolution 3 is apparent from the portion of the resolution which states as follows:
“All these expired amendments are about the selection of the Co-ordinator of Kazhagam and the Joint Co-Ordinator of Kazhagam. Even though these amendments expired, the activities which were done by them as the Co- i Ordinator of Kazhagam and the Joint Co-Ordinator of Kazhagam, being done within the rules and regulations prevailing in the Kazhagam are accepted by this General Body.”
The said portion of the Resolution is inherently self-contradictory. The purported General Council has firstly assumed upon itself a power to cherry-pick and sanctify acts of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator selectively. Simultaneously, it also seeks to assert that the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator have lapsed. However, no such powers are conferred upon the General Council under the byelaws of the Party.
• The third erroneous assumption in Resolution 3 can be discerned from the portion of the resolution which states as follows:
“Therefore, it was resolved that as per the basic members of Kazhagam and as per their expectation and request, and as per the recommendation of public, the positions of Co-Ordinator of Kazhagam and the Joint Co- Ordinator of Kazhagam are cancelled, and General secretary post which would be elected by the basic members of the Kazhagam has to be formed.”
The said portions of the resolution suffer from serious errors. Firstly, the assertion that the so-called General Council has divined the wishes of the “basic members of the Kazhagam” is an assertion out of thin aair that is unsupported by any quantifiable data. In fact, as late as December 2021, the entire cadre of the primary members of the Party have unanimously voted for and elected unopposed EPS and OPS (third and fourth defendants) as Coordinator and Joint Coordinator respectively. Furthermore, the said Resolution also completely fails to appreciate the import of the amendments made in 2017 which unambiguously installed late Dr. J. Jayalalithaa as the Eternal General Secretary of the Party and abolished the post of General Secretary for all times to come. The very use of the word “eternal” in the 2017 amendments to the byelaws made it absolutely clear that no other person could ever be deemed fit to hold the post of General Secretary ever again. The clear import of the resolutions passed in 2017 was that no single leader could ever rise to the stature of the previous General Secretaries of the Party, who were all towering personalities of super-eminent stature. Indeed, this is made abundantly clear from the wording of Resolution No. 7 passed at the General Council Meeting held on 12.09.2017 which stated as follows:
As it is not possible for anyone else to function as the General Secretary of the Party, a position sanctified by Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma the position of the General Secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is hereby abolished.
Even before getting involved in the works of Kazhagam Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma had earned countrywide reputation. She dedicated her reputation to the Kazhagam and served it for many years and strengthened it further. It is in this context that we in All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam were joyously lauding Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma as Kazhagam’s permanent General Secretary.
The mentor of the intellectual world, Perarignar Anna had adopted Thanthai Periyar as his leader and entered public life. He firmly believed and declared to himself and his followers that no one but Periyar can be the leader of the Dravidian Movement. he did not recognize anyone as the President of the Party he had established and declared that the qualification and stature of such a position was only appropriate to the social revolutionary Thanthai Periyar.
We are descendents of Perarignar Anna and adopt the respect and devotion he had bestowed on his leader Thanthai Periyar.
Accordingly, to reinforce that only Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma could be the permanent General Secretary of our All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and as paying obeisance to her life of total dedication we whole-heartedly believed that the esteem and dignity of the position of Kazhagam’s General Secretary is appropriate only to our Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma.
Therefore we realize that the places left behind by the two eminent leaders-the founder-leader of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivar MGR and All india Anna Dravida Munneetra Kazhagam’s permanent General Secretary Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma cannot be occupied hence forth by anyone else. taking this factor into account, we have decided that All India Anna Dravida, Munnetra Kazhagam no longer has the position of General Secretary; the post is rescinded. Therefore, on this basis Kazhagam’s General Council unanimously agrees to amend clause 43 of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s byelaws. (emphasis supplied)
The 2017 resolutions made it clear that no one in the future could rise to the stature of the previous General Secretaries of the Party. This sentiment was engrafted into the byelaws of the Party which abolished the post of General Secretary and deliberately and consciously installed Late Dr. J.Jayalalithaa as the “Eternal” General Secretary of the Party.
Because of the above erroneous assumptions, the entirety of the amendments to the Party’s byelaws sought to be introduced by Resolution No.3 at the Meeting held on 11.07.2022 are completely illegal, ultra vires and void ab initio.
Resolution No. 4
The byelaw 20A (7) was amended. The amendment provides that the tenure of the members of the Council and the Head Quarters parties secretaries who are appointed by the General Secretary will extend till that of the party General Secretary.
In the interregnum if the party General Secretary is discharged, removed or becomes incapable of functioning or a situation arises that the post becomes vacant till the new General Secretary is elected and takes charge an interim General Secretary of the party will be elected by the General Council . The party interim General Secretary will conduct the functions of the General Secretary and the administration of the party continuously.
For the purpose of appointing the interim General Secretary of the party the party headquarters Secretary are given the power to convene the General Council Meeting immediately. Such meeting should be convened within 30 days.
I further submit that furthermore, the Resolution 4 passed on the same date is also illegal since it seeks to once again resurrect the post of General Secretary of the Party which cannot be done for the detailed reasons stated above. The said Resolution 4 is also illegal because it seeks to create a temporary post of Interim General Secretary which is also completely contrary to the Party’s byelaws. In fact, even in 2017, the General Council passed resolutions that were against any person assuming the post of Interim General Secretary. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Resolution No.8 passed at the General Council Meeting held on 12.09.2017 specifically stated as follows:
“In an atmosphere of shock and grief caused by the untimely demise of Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma, a temporary General Secretary was appointed to deal with Kazhagam’s day-to-day activities. That position and the appointments announced by that incumbent are hereby revoked.
In an atmosphere of shock and grief caused by the untimely demise of Idaya Deivam Puratchi Thalaivi Amma, a meeting of the General Council of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was held on 29.12.2016. At this meeting Mrs. V.K. Sasikala was appointed as the temporary General Secretary, to deal with Kazhagam’s day-to-day activities.
The 29.12.2012 appointment of Mrs. V.K. Sasikala is hereby revoked. This General Council unanimously resolves that the appointments, removals, admissions and all related activities under takes by Mrs. V.K. Sasikala during the period from 30.12.20156 to 15.02.2017 as null and void.” (emphasis supplied)
Thus, in 2017 itself, the General Council had specifically deprecated the practice of appointing a temporary General Secretary and had specifically resolved that any actions by such person would be null and void. The resolutions taken at the purported General Council Meeting are clearly contrary to the purport and intent of the 2017 resolutions and also have no sanction in the byelaws of the Party which clearly prohibit any resurrection of the post of General Secretary, and therefore, per force precludes appointment of any temporary / interim General Secretary as well.
Resolution No. 5
Another resolution namely resolution No.5 was passed in the aforesaid meeting of General Council of the 1st Defendant appointing the fourth defendant as the interim General Secretary of the 1st defendant party and conferring or him all the powers of the regular General Secretary to carry on the administration of the 1st defendant.
I further submit that since Resolution 4 is itself illegal as stated above, the Plaintiff states that Resolution 5 passed at the purported General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022 automatically becomes illegal, null and void. The said resolution sought to appoint EPS (fourth defendant) as the Interim General Secretary. Moreover, the so-called appointment was made de hors of any election/selection process and once again, the General Council assumed upon itself powers to elect an Interim General Secretary when no such power exists in the byelaws of the Party.
Resolution No. 6
Another resolution namely resolution No.6 was passed in the aforesaid General Council meeting stating that the election for the post of the General Secretary of the 1st defendant has to be conducted and that persons qualified to vote will be issued a new membership card after renewing the membership. The election for the post of General Secretary will be conducted within 4 months from 11/7/2022. Further Mr.Natham R. Viswanathan MLA and another Mr.Pollachi V. Jayaraman the were appointed as election officers.
I further submit that the Resolution No.6 passed at the purported General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022 seeks to make several amendment to the byelaws of the Party. These amendments are manifestly made with a view to introduce extremely high eligibility conditions for any member of the Party to contest elections to the post of General Secretary of the Party. The said amendments go against the founding ethos, the basic structure and the history of inner party democracy of the AIADMK party. Right from the Party’s formation, the byelaws have always envisaged that any primary member of the Party can contest for elections to the post of General Secretary (later Coordinator and Joint Coordinator). As such, it is beyond the powers of the General Council to amend such provisions of the Party’s byelaws that constitute part of its basic structure.
46. I submit that apart from the above Resolution Nos.1, 7 to 15 were passed which were in the nature of public matters. Apart from that a special resolution was passed in and by which Rule 35 of the party was invoked and the third Respondent was removed from all primary membership and other posts. Further without any material, I was also removed along with one Mr.R.Vaithiyalingam, MLA and JCD.Prabhakar, Ex.MLA was also removed. It is to be noted that while removing the third Respondent Rule 35 of the bye-law was invoked and there was no mention of any rule on the resolution of removing me and the other members. Till date, the Plaintiff has not been served with any notice of termination/expulsion.
By way of the Special Resolution passed at the purported General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022, several senior members of the Party (including the Plaintiff) have sought to be illegally expelled. The said expulsions are completely contrary to the byelaws of the Party as well as the basic principles of fair play and natural justice for the following reasons:
– Firstly, there was no prior notice / agenda item circulated in relation to such expulsion.
– Secondly, there were no charges framed against the expelled members and they were never given an opportunity to defend themselves against the charges made against them.
– Lastly, the power to take disciplinary action under the Party’s byelaws clearly vest only with the Coordinator and the Joint Coordinator. The General Council has no role to play in the disciplinary proceedings against Party members.
47. I submit that my removal by the General Council through a special resolution is illegal. I further submit that as per the rules of the bye-laws of the first Respondent party as amended on 12.09.2017 which is taken on record by the Election Commission of India does not provide any power to the General Council to terminate / expel any member of the party, the power is only vested with the third and fourth Respondent jointly to be exercised. The General council i.e. the second Respondent without any authority, jurisdiction, power and without any notice seeking any explanation from my side expelled me from the first Respondent party and therefore, the same is liable to be declared as null and void. I submit that I am the sitting MLA and if this resolution is allowed to stand, it will have severe ramifications in functioning on the member of the 1st Respondent Party in the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly, the same would be affect not only me but also the voters of my constituency as if any demand is raised, the said demand will not be considered effectively by the Government.
48. I submit that the third and fourth respondents as stated above conducted the election for the other organization unit posts of the 1st Respondent as stated above and nominated office bearers of the 1st Respondent and members of their choice to the General Council. The persons who are elected in such election conducted by the said defendants as coordinators and joint coordinator of the 1st Respondent and person nominated by them have formed the present General Council of the 1st defendant. I further submit that such election has been ratified in the General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022. Such conduct of the General Council in selecting ratifying by the election of the office bearers and the General Council Members by the third and fourth respondents is arbitrary.
49. In these circumstances the resolutions passed in the General Council meeting of the 1st Respondent held on 11.7.2022 as stated above is neither lawful nor legal and against the principles of natural justice.
50. I submit that the amendments to the constitution of the 1st Respondent effected by such as the General Council by passing Resolution Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and Special Resolution are also void and not valid.
51. I submit that the amendments brought forth on 11/7/2022 introducing qualifications for contesting for the posts of General Secretary as narrated in para 31(3) above are absolutely unlawful and arbitrary for it goes against the bye-law No.45 of the 1stdefendants constitution/bye-laws. Further the aforesaid bylaw No.45 which cannot be amended directly is sought to be violated and vilified indirectly by introducing the aforesaid qualification and making the proposal of 10 district secretaries and seconding of another 10 District Secretary who are all members of the General Council mandatory. By this very cleverly and cunningly the control over the election of the party General Secretary of the 1st Respondent is made dependent and brought under the control of the General Council of the 1st respondent and thereby defeating the democratic set up as envisaged by the founder and the intention that any primary member of the party can contest for the post of General Secretary in election.
52. I further submit that there are only 75 District Secretaries, a District Secretary who proposes cannot record or propose for another candidate and vice versa. Therefore only a maximum of 3 candidates can contest and the General Council can control and decide who they are. Added to this, only persons who have served minimum 5 years continuously in some post of the party Head Quarters can contest. All these are design to shift to control over the election of the General Secretary of the 1st Respondent from the basic and primary members of the party to the party Head Quarters and the General Council. Similarly the creation of the posts of interim General Secretary and the handing over the same to the 4th Respondent and the mandate to conduct the election for the post of General Secretary within 4 months while the 4th Respondent is kept in control of the party is improper and illegal. All these amendments are brought to give monopoly to the 4th Respondent in the intended election.
53. In view of foregoing reasons the amendments to the Constitution/Byelaws of the 1st Respondent effected in the meeting dated 11.7.2022 are void, non est and unsustainable.
54. I submit that the 1st Respondent is being administered and run against its own Constitution/Byelaws in a manner that is unlawful and illegal and also ultra vires its Constitution/Byelaws. I further submit that by a letter dated 28.06.2022 addressed to the Election Commission of India, the fourth Respondent informed that as the Election of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were not approved the said posts have also lapsed.
55. I submit that I am a primary member of the 1st Respondent and aggrieved by the violation of the constitution of the 1st Respondent and the illegalities that are taking place inside the 1st Respondent political party. I am entitled to file the suit and to ensure that the 1st Respondent is Administered and made to function as per its lawful constitution.
56. I submit that the Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st Respondent is supreme even the General Council of the 1st respondent, or all the members of the 1st Respondent cannot act against or agree to act against or ratify acts done against the Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant. The stream cannot rise higher than its source. Such acts are absolutely void and cannot be ratified later. Where an act is done which is ultra vires the Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st Respondent and no legal relationship effect/status arises there from. The acts done and amendment effected pursuance to such ultra vires act are void abinito, unauthorized, illegitimate and non est and they do not create any rights are status what so ever.
57. I submit that as on date the 1st Respondent party is bound by its lawful byelaws amended on 12.09.2017 subsequent unlawful and ultra vires amendments are void and non est.
58. I submit that the 1st Respondent is now administered by unlawfully elected office bearers who were elected on the basis of lawful in unlawful elections conducted in derogation of and ultra vires the true Constitution/Rules and Regulations of the 1st defendant. So at present the entire administration and functioning of the 1st Respondent is not lawful and in accordance with its Constitution/Rules and Regulations. The funds of the Respondent No.1 is being diverted and mismanaged, defalcated and squandered.
59. I submit that if the resolutions are allowed to continue, it would injured my rights as a member of the legislative assembly and also a member of the first respondent party and also I will not be in a position to perform the function as an organizing secretary and a member of the Advisory Committee of the first respondent party.
60. I submit that the Fourth Respondent herein after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, informed to the Print/Visual Media that the election of the General Council will be held soon.
61. I submit that I have a prima facie case as the second respondent does not have any power to take disciplinary action under the byelaws of the first respondent and if at all any disciplinary action to the effect of termination of the membership can be done only by the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator i.e third and fourth respondents herein to exercise the power jointly. The said power is vested with them as per the amended byelaw dated 12.09.2017 which has been approved by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, I have a prima facie case for the grant of stay of operation of the Resolution Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and Special Resolutions of the second respondent dated 11.07.2022. The balance of convenience is also in my favour as the second respondent had given an undertaking to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30.09.2022 in SLPs being Nos.15705 & 15706/2022 that the election of the General secretary will not be held. I Submit that if an interim order pending suit is not granted, I will be put to irreparable loss and untold hardship as my right to continue as a Member of the First Respondent is injured.
I therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents and persons claiming through them from implementing/enforcing the Resolutions being Resolution Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 and Special Resolution dated 11.07.2022 of the second Respondent and justice be rendered.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on Before me
this the 1st day of March 2023
and signed his name in my presence