HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Respondent - Respondent
O.A. Nos. 250, 249, 251, 235, 164, 236, 219, 220, 237, 221, 222 of 2023 & A. Nos. 1781 & 1726 of 2023 in C.S.No.47, 55, 56 & 62 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2023
The Madras High Court, in a batch of applications arising from four suits, delved into the internal affairs of a political party, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), and adjudicated upon the validity of certain resolutions passed by the party's General Council and the expulsion of certain members.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, who were members of the AIADMK, challenged the resolutions passed by the General Council on 11.07.2022, which abolished the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and revived the post of General Secretary. They also challenged the special resolution passed on the same date, which expelled them from the party. The applicants sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondents from implementing the resolutions and conducting elections for the post of General Secretary.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, after examining the relevant bye-laws of the party and the circumstances leading to the passing of the resolutions, held that the resolutions abolishing the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and reviving the post of General Secretary were prima facie valid. The Court found that the General Council had the power to amend the bye-laws and that the resolutions were passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However, the Court found that the special resolution expelling the applicants was prima facie invalid as it was passed without following the procedure prescribed in the bye-laws.
Issues: 1. Whether the resolutions passed by the General Council on 11.07.2022, abolishing the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and reviving the post of General Secretary, were valid; 2. Whether the special resolution passed on the same date, expelling the applicants from the party, was valid; 3. Whether the applicants were entitled to interim injunctions to restrain the respondents from implementing the resolutions and conducting elections for the post of General Secretary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the resolutions abolishing the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and reviving the post of General Secretary were prima facie valid because: a) The General Council had the power to amend the bye-laws under Rule 43 of the party's bye-laws; b) The resolutions were passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, as evidenced by the fact that they were passed by a majority of the General Council members present at the meeting; c) The resolutions were not arbitrary or mala fide, as they were passed in response to a demand from a large number of primary members for a single leadership structure; 2. The Court held that the special resolution expelling the applicants was prima facie invalid because: a) The General Council did not have the authority to invoke Rule 35 of the bye-laws, which deals with disciplinary proceedings, to expel the applicants; b) The procedure prescribed in Rule 35, including the requirement to issue a notice and provide an opportunity to explain, was not followed; c) The reasons given for the expulsion were generic and did not specify any specific violations committed by the applicants; 3. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to interim injunctions because: a) The balance of convenience did not favor the applicants, as granting an injunction would have caused irreparable harm to the party by preventing it from functioning effectively; b) The applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunctions were not granted.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the applications for interim injunctions and held that the resolutions abolishing the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator and reviving the post of General Secretary were prima facie valid, while the special resolution expelling the applicants was prima facie invalid. The Court directed the respondents to file their counters to the applications and listed the matter for further hearing.
JUDGMENT
1. The background upon which the Suits in which these Applications came to be filed would be relevant to be noted. I stand benefited by the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in a Civil Appeal No.1392 of 2023, dated 23.02.2023, which has been extensively relied upon by the Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respective parties in these applications. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment had in detail, dealt with the reasons on which the Civil Appeal had come before the Court. The relevant paragraphs in the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“The matters in issue essentially relate to the internal management of a political party, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which is registered with the Election Commission of India. This political party, said to be having the primary cadre consisting of more than 1.5 crore members, has its own byelaws, which have been amended from time to time. The two upper levels of party structure include the Central Executive Committee and the General Council of the Central Organization. Though, in the scheme of byelaws, the topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on 05.12.2016, the party organisation went through a sea of changes and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, was established by way of amendment of byelaws on 12.09.2017. However, the propositions for further amendments have met with divergent views of different factions within the party and have led to these litigations in as many as at least five civil suits. The prayers for temporary injunction during the pendency of these civil suits have led to different orders at different stages by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on the Original side and on the Appellate side as also by this Court.
5. For introductory purposes, we may indicate that in the first three civil suits, being CS Nos.102 of 2022, 106 of 2022 and 111 of 2022, various applications seeking interim reliefs were dealt with by an order dated 22.06.2022 whereby, the learned Single Judge of the High Court declined to grant any injunction against the meeting of the General Council scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022. This order was challenged by one of the plaintiffs in an intra-court appeal, OSA No.160 of 2022; and therein, by an order dated 23.06.2022, as passed after an early morning hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court, though allowed the said scheduled meeting of the General Council but, placed fetters on its scope by providing that no decision shall be taken on any other matter except 23 items of draft resolution. The said order dated 23.06.2022 came to be challenged in this Court in the three appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11237 of 2022, 11578 of 2022 and 11579 of 2022 in this batch of matters. By way of an interim order dated 06.07.2022, this Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated 23.06.2022 and further to that, the next proposed meeting of the General Council slated to be held on 11.07.2022 was also permitted but while leaving it open to the parties to seek any other interim relief before the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil suits. Before the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2022 by this Court, two more civil suits, being CS Nos.118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022, came to be filed before the High Court against the said proposed meeting dated 11.07.2022. Therein again, a learned Single Judge of the High Court conducted early morning hearing on 11.07.2022 and declined the interim relief. The said meeting dated 11.07.2022 was, accordingly, held at the scheduled time and various resolutions were adopted therein but, the said order dated 11.07.2022 was subjected to challenge in this Court and, by an order dated 27.09.2022, this Court remanded the matter for reconsideration. Thereafter, the interim relief applications in the
Ravi Yashwanth Bhoir vs. District Collector Raigod & Ors.
Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh
Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.
Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji
The long usage of the flag, which has acquired proprietary rights of the political party, and the absence of a provision for registration of the flag were central legal principles established in the ....
The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.
The court dismissed the appeals against the interim injunction, stating that no final orders had been passed, and the interim injunction was based on sound discretion and was granted for a limited pe....
The court affirmed that a political party's internal dispute resolution must adhere to established party rules, and a suit becomes infructuous if the faction it represents ceases to exist.
A plaintiff who has acquiesced in or condoned the alleged irregularities or illegalities cannot come to Court with clean hands and is not entitled to the discretionary relief of an interim injunction....
Statutory provision, namely Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, also is not empowering the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to go into the election dispute.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.