SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Chennai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, (Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) through its Office bearer: E. Madhusudanan & Ors. - Respondents
A.S. Nos. 337, 338 & 339 of 2022 & Civil Revision Petition No. 2347 of 2022 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 05-12-2023

For the Appellants :G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, P.A. Elantamil Arvalan, Advocates. For the Respondents:Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for M/s. K. Gowthamkumar, C. Vigneshwaran, Amogh Sinha, Harini Muruganandam, A.P. Balaji & E. Balamurugan, Advocates. P.H. Aravind Pandian,Senior Counsel for Ms. P. Rajalakshmi, Advocates, R. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel, S.R. Raghunathan, Anil Kumar & E. Balamurugan, Advocates.

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.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Dispute within political party - Appeals and Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of plaint and amendment applications regarding the internal power struggle within All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Amma) party - The trial court found the suit meritless due to the dissolution of the faction represented by the plaintiffs following the Election Commission's final order recognizing another faction as the original party. (Paras 10, 74)

(B) Parties - The second plaintiff claimed to be the General Secretary of the party and sought to amend the plaint to reflect changes in party leadership following the Election Commission's ruling - The trial court held that the amendments would alter the nature of the suit and were not permissible. (Paras 72, 73)

(C) Findings of Court - The court confirmed the trial court's decision that the suit was infructuous as the faction was no longer in existence and that the second plaintiff could not claim to represent the party. (Paras 74, 76)

(D)

Result: Appeals and Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: in AS Nos. 337 to 339 of 2022: These appeals have been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to set aside the decretal order dated 11.04.2022 passed in (i) I.A.No.8 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021, (ii) I.A.No.10 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021, (iii) I.A.No.9 of 2021 in O.S.No.1413 of 2021on the file of the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. In CRP No.2347 of 2022: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 11.04.2022, passed by the IV Additional City Civil Court at Chennai in IA No.11 of 2021 in OS No.1413/2021 (C.S. No.858/2017 (B)).)

Common Judgement

R. Subramanina, J.

1. These Appeals and the Revision symbolize the power tussle in one of the major political parties in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Political Party viz. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam was founded by Dr.M.G.Ramnachandran, a star of yesteryears, during the year 1972. The constitution of the party which is called the Rules and Regulations framed soon after the formation of the Political Party were amended from time to time to suit the needs of the political situation in the State.

2. On the passing away of Dr.M.G.Ramanchandran, the party split into two, where one of the factions was led by his wife Janaki Ramachandran and the other by his close confidant Dr.J.Jayalalitha, who was also a movie star of yesteryears. However, after suffering a major defeat in the elections that ensued immediately after the split, both the factions came together and Dr.J.Jayalalitha, became the General Secretary of the party.

3. As per the constitution of the party, the post of the General Secretary has the highest authority in the party and it weilds enormous powers. Dr.J.Jayalalitha took ill and eventually met her maker on 05.12.2016. On her passing away began the struggle for power in the party.

4. A notice convening the Meeting of the General Council of the party on 29.12.2016 was issued on 09.12.2016 by the office bearers of the Headquarters of the party. At the said meeting Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, was appointed as the interim General Secretary. Her name was proposed by almost all the members of the Executive Council of the party and was seconded by the members of the General Council. To put it simply, she was the unanimous choice. However, Mr.O.Panneerselvam, one of the prominent members of the party, who was the Chief Minister resigned as Chief Minister on 07.02.2017.

5. On 14.02.2017, the Appeal against the Criminal case by the General Secretary Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, as against her conviction was dismissed thereby confirming her conviction. As a result of which she was incarcerated at the Parappana Agrahara Prison in Bangaluru. On 16.02.2017, Mr.Edappadi K. Palanisamy, another prominent member of the party was chosen and sworn in as the Chief Minister. Upon her appointment as General Secretary, Tmt.V.K.Sasikala, appointed the third plaintiff in the suit one Mr. T.T.V.Dhinakaran, as a Deputy General Secretary on 14.02.2017. In her capacity as General Secretary, Tmt. V.K.Sasikala, removed Mr.E.Madhusudanan and Mr.O.Panneerselvam , who figure as defendants 2 and 3 in the suit, as office-bearers of the party. While Mr.O.Panneerselvam was removed from the post of the Treasurer, Mr.Madhusudanan, was removed from the post of the Presidium Chairman as well as from the primary membership of the party with effect from 10.02.2017. Several other nominations were also made to various posts in the party consequent upon removal of the incumbents. These removals and appointments were forwarded to the Election Commission of India also.

6. This led to a dispute as to which of the two groups represented the real party. Both the groups approached the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The Election commission passed an interim order on 22.03.2017 freezing the symbol of the party and directing both the quarrel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top