The AIADMK general council can, at best, only suspend a party member and not directly expel him/her from primary membership without issuing a charge memo and an opportunity to explain their stand, argued expelled members R. Vaithilingam and JCD Prabhakar before the Madras High Court on Friday.
Appearing before Justice K. Kumaresh Babu who is seized of two civil suits filed by them, Senior Counsel P.S. Raman contended that the bylaws of the party do not empower the general council to expel any member without notice and hence the resolutions passed at the AIADMK’s July 11, 2022 general council meet were without any legal backing.
“These suits have been filed by two primary members of over 40 years. Mr. Vaithilingam is a sitting MLA elected on AIADMK ticket from Orathanadu constituency. There is no provision cited under which the plaintiffs were sought to be expelled. No charge memo, no opportunity of hearing. Straightaway expulsion has taken place,” he complained to the court.
Mr. Raman went on to state, on behalf of his clients: “How can they expel without even giving an opportunity of hearing? They have thrown the bylaws to the winds. I have come here only to assert my civil right. The party’s bylaws regarding disciplinary proceedings categorically state that a charge-sheet must be issued but we came to know about our expulsion only through a press release.”
Mr. Raman also argued that the Supreme Court had only upheld the conduct of the July 11 meeting and had not given any finding with respect to validity of the resolutions passed in the meeting.
Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan, representing the general council, said, these two suits could be heard along with a similar suit already filed by Alangulam MLA P.H. Manoj Pandian.
Seeking two weeks time for filing of counter affidavits to all the three suits and one more week for filing of a rejoinder by the plaintiffs, the Senior Counsel urged the court to adjourn the matter by three weeks. He opposed the granting of any kind of interim order in the meantime, and said, the applications for interim relief could be heard after completion of pleadings.
“Already eight months have gone by since the resolutions were passed. Nothing would happen in another three weeks,” he told the court. Senior Counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, representing the AIADMK and its interim general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, said, the resolutions had already been given effect to, and therefore, there was nothing to be stayed by the court.
Palaniswami not joint coordinator or interim general secretary, argues counsel for P.H. Manoj Pandian
On the other hand, senior counsel Abdul Saleem, representing Mr. Pandian, told the court that so far only the AIADMK and Mr. Palaniswami had filed a joint counter affidavit to his client’s application for interim relief but the party’s general council had not filed any counter affidavit though it had been arrayed separately as one of the defendants.
Pointing out that Mr. Palaniswami had written to the Election Commission stating that he no longer held the post of Joint Coordinator and since the Commission had so far not recognised him as the interim general secretary, “as on date, he neither holds the post of Coordinator nor that of interim general secretary,” he argued.
However, Mr. Vaidyanathan retorted saying: “They (plaintiffs) are under a delusion that even today there exists the post of Coordinator, which was held by former Chief Minister and another expelled leader O. Panneerselvam until the July 11 general council abolished it along with the post of Joint Coordinator.”
When Mr. Saleem insisted on an interim order since the Legislative Assembly might convene anytime and the plaintiffs wanted to participate in it as AIADMK members, Justice Babu wanted to know whether any session of the Assembly was convened in the last eight months ever since the plaintiffs got expelled on July 11.
To this, he replied that the general council had given an undertaking before the Supreme Court to not implement the resolutions. Refuting the claim vehemently, Mr. Vaidyanathan said: “Absolutely wrong statement. No such undertaking was given. We have already implemented the resolutions.” He also objected to an interim order directing the AIADMK and its general council to not precipitate the matter until the next hearing of the three interim plea applications filed along with the suits. “We have already written to the Speaker. It is up to him to take a call. We can’t do anything about it,” he said.
After hearing all sides, the judge decided to hear the applications for interim relief at length on April 11 and directed the parties to complete their pleading by then.
