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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBRAMANIAN, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
VA.Pugazhendi - Appellant 
Versus 
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - Respondent 
W.M.P.No.2933 of 2025 in W.P.No.258 of 2025, W.M.P.No.2872 of 2025 in W.P.No.265 of 2025, W.M.P.No.4877 of 2025 in W.P.No.252 of 2025 along with W.M.P.No.294 of 2025 in W.P.No.258 of 2025, W.M.P.No.304 of 2025 in W.P.No.265 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.289 of 2025 in W.P.No.252 of 2025 
Decided on : 12-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.Vijay Narayan, Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for R2 & R3

The Election Commission must confirm the existence of rival groups before exercising jurisdiction over political party disputes under Section 29A.

Headnote:(A) Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 29A - Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 - Jurisdiction of the Election Commission - The court ruled on the validity of interim orders regarding the Election Commission's inquiry into the party's internal disputes related to a General Council meeting. The court held that until the Election Commission satisfies itself of the existence of rival groups claiming to be the party, it cannot exercise its jurisdiction. (Paras 43, 45)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered political party, contested the validity of the Election Commission's inquiry into internal matters following disputes over its General Council meeting of July 11, 2022. There were civil proceedings and interim orders in effect regarding the party's internal affairs.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Election Commission does not have inherent jurisdiction over internal party matters unless it first establishes the existence of rival factions as per its mandates under the Election Symbols Order.

Issues: The main issues addressed include whether the court can review the Election Commission's actions, the inherent jurisdiction of the Commission, and potential overreach of civil court orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that jurisdiction must first be established by the Election Commission before proceeding with any inquiry regarding internal disputes of a political party.

Result: The stay orders were vacated, allowing the Election Commission to proceed with its inquiries, conditioned on its jurisdictional findings.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction under article 226 for vacating interim orders. (Para 1 , 2)
2. validity of resolutions from general council meeting. (Para 3 , 4)
3. authority's power limited by ongoing civil proceedings. (Para 5)
4. interlocutory orders impacting election commission proceedings. (Para 6 , 7)
5. arguments on the election commission’s jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 10 , 18)
6. restrictions on judicial interference with statutory authority actions. (Para 12 , 22)
7. ratio of jurisdiction under para 15 of the symbols order. (Para 14 , 15 , 25 , 26)
8. establishing jurisdiction thresholds for commission inquiries. (Para 19)
9. court delineating boundaries of election commission's inquiry. (Para 32 , 45)
10. court's conclusion on stay orders and future inquiries by the commission. (Para 44)
11. final orders regarding stay and costs. (Para 46 , 47)

ORDER :

R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. W.M.P.Nos.2872 of 2025, 2933 of 2025 and 4877 of 2025 have been filed under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to vacate the interim orders granted by this court on 09.01.2025.

2. The Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.252, 258 and 269 of 2025 have been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letters dated 24.12.2024 issued by the Secretary to the Election Commission of India while W.P.Nos.262, 265, 264 of 2025 have been filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition restraining the Election Commission of India from proceeding with or adjudicating the proceedings in furtherance to the letter dated 24.12.2024.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner, which is a registered political party is as follows:-

3. The petitioner is a political party recognized as such and registered with the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Certain disputes arose with reference to the validity of the General Council meeting of the said political party that was held on 11.07.2022, wherein certain amendments to the Constitution of the party were carried out. The validity of the meeting dated 11.07.2022 as well as the validity of the resolutions passed thereat including the ones amending the constitution of the party and the election of the deponent Mr.Edappadi K.Palanisamy as the General Secretary of the party are subject matter of various civil proceedings before this Court and the City Civil Court, Chenai. There are also certain interim orders of injunction which have been challenged upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the result of those interlocutory proceedings in the civil suit Mr.Edappadi K.Palanisamy continues to function as the General Secretary of the Party.

4. While things stood thus some of the Members as well as the non-members of the party had made several representations to the Election Commission touching upon the validity of the General Council meeting dated 11.07.2022, the validity of the resolutions passed therein and other matters. One such petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.5300 of 2024 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Election Commission to dispose of his representation dated 12.02.2024 in accordance with law. The said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian) was a party and this Court had passed the following order:-

“The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to consider his representation dated 12.02.2024 and dispose of it in accordance with law.

2. Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ Election Commission of Inda would submit that the Election Commission has issued notice to the parties and their responses has also been received and the Commission will take a decision within a period of four weeks from today. The Commission will hear all the parties before it reaches a decision.

3. This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.”

5. An application was filed by one of the parties

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