data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5cb0b/5cb0bd26efa3394c8241f2c28dcb1b3221a04de1" alt="Madras HC rules in Panneerselvam’s favour, orders AIADMK to remain as it was on June 23"
Madras HC rules in Panneerselvam’s favour, orders AIADMK to remain as it was on June 23
India Today
Justice G Jayachandran of the Madras HC ruled in favour of O Pannerselvam in a case regarding the legality of the AIADMK general council meeting held on July 11. He added that the status quo of the party as of June 23 should continue and ordered a fresh GC meeting.
The Madras High Court, in the case regarding the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) general council meeting, has ruled in favour of O Panneerselvam (OPS). Justice G Jayachandran ruled that the AIADMK status quo would continue as it was on June 23. He further issued orders to conduct a fresh general council meeting.
“The status of the AIADMK as of June 23 must continue. A general council meeting cannot be conducted without the assent of both the Coordinator and Joint Coordinators,” stated the order.
The case, which was initially heard by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, was changed to Justice G Jayachandran’s bench. This was done after OPS' counsel sorted for a change in judge.
The request for the change in judge had not gone down well with the court. OPS had been criticised by the court for not believing in the justice system. Later, OPS' team apologised for the same.
But the change of judge was brought into place and Justice Jayachandran heard the same arguments of both parties. Last week, he had reserved the orders.
OPS’ counsel has argued that the general council meeting conducted on July 11 was invalid. He also questioned, "If the posts of Coordinators and Joint Coordinators are abolished, how come the GC members appointed by dual leadership alone could continue in positions in the AIADMK?"
They also presented arguments that on June 23 it was very clear that OPS had left the premises even before the resolution regarding the praesidium chairman was made. The counsel further argued that as per the by-laws, the coordinator's consent was needed for the meeting.