The AIADMK on Friday told the Madras High Court that it is contemplating filing a case, since the Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu has so far not taken any call on the party’s request to not consider O. Panneerselvam and other expelled leaders as members of the AIADMK legislature party.
ADVERTISEMENT
Appearing before the third Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq, Senior Counsel Vijay Narayan said, the AIADMK MLAs were unable to discuss anything among themselves in the House because the Speaker had not even changed the seating arrangement of Mr. Panneerselvam and the other expelled members.
The submission was made during the hearing of individual appeals preferred by four expelled AIADMK leaders against a single judge’s March 28 order, refusing to grant an interim injunction restraining the party from implementing its July 11, 2022 general council resolutions and the consequent election held to the post of general secretary.
ADVERTISEMENT
When Justice Mahadevan wanted to know why the appellants should not be provided some kind of interim protection either until the disposal of the present appeals or the main civil suits pending before the single judge, Mr. Narayan said, no injury would be caused to Mr. Panneerselvam who was not supported by more than 95% of the party members.
Referring to the party bylaws, which require a contestant to the post of general secretary to be proposed by 10 district secretaries and seconded by 10 more district secretaries, the Senior Counsel said, he could produce before the court the affidavits of at least 68 out of 70 district secretaries who do not want to endorse Mr. Panneerselvam’s candidature.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel P.S. Raman, C. Manishankar, Abdul Saleem and A.K. Sriram told the court that the single judge had come to a prima facie conclusion of infraction of bylaws in the expulsion of the four appellants without issuing any notice to them. Yet, he had refused to grant an interim injunction as prayed for, by considering the balance of convenience.
Stating that they have a fair chance of succeeding in the appeals due to the prima facie satisfaction recorded by the single judge, the counsel insisted that some kind of interim protection be granted to the appellants, until the disposal of the appeals or the disposal of the civil suits, especially because the Legislative Assembly was in session at present.
After hearing the preliminary arguments advanced by both sides, the judges decided to hear the matter at length on Monday and asked the counsel to complete their pleadings by then. They said, a call on granting interim protection would also be taken on that day and it would also be considered whether the single judge could be asked to dispose of the suits at the earliest.