Another twist: Madras High Court reinstates EPS as AIADMK interim general secretary

With this, EPS is back as the interim general secretary of the AIADMK and the expulsion of Paneerselvam and his supporters from the primary membership of the party continues to be valid.

Celebrations erupted outside EPS’ residence in Chennai immediately after the court verdict on Friday. Several senior leaders of the AIADMK also called on EPS.

“OPS is zero and we (the EPS camp) are the hero,” senior AIADMK leader D Jayakumar told South First about the court order.

He added that the party cadres across Tamil Nadu were extremely happy about the judgement, which according to them proved that they did not violate any party by-law.

As far as OPS is concerned, the order of the division bench comes as a massive setback for him. When asked about it, he gave a brief reaction, and stated that the order would be challenged in the Supreme Court.

Single-judge order

It is to be noted that the single-judge order invalidated both the appointment of EPS as the AIADMK’s interim general secretary and the expulsion of OPS from the primary membership of the party.

The status quo ante as on 23 June in the AIADMK meant a continuation of the dual-leadership system, where OPS was the party coordinator and EPS the joint coordinator.

The order boosted OPS’ stature at a time when he was finding himself cornered in the party-leadership tussle. There were massive celebrations outside his residence after the order was pronounced.

The OPS camp deemed it a vindication of its stand that EPS and his supporters had violated the by-laws of the AIADMK and stage-managed the entire process of his elevation as the party’s interim general secretary.

The order came as a massive setback for EPS, especially at a time he was warming up to his role as the interim general secretary.

Though the EPS camp was disappointed over the verdict and had given a point-by-point rebuttal to the findings of the judge, the leaders supporting him had said that the order was not the final word on the leadership tussle as they could appeal against the order.

Odds in EPS’ favour

After EPS challenged the single-judge order, key arguments were put forward before the division bench by both sides, each represented by a battery of lawyers.

Appearing on behalf of EPS were senior lawyers CS Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, and Vijay Narayan.

On the other hand, OPS was represented by senior counsel Guru Krishnakumar and PH Aravind Pandian.

“Extraordinary” was the term that Vaidyanathan used to describe the single-judge order of status quo ante in the affairs of the AIADMK, as it was not even allegedly the original prayer of OPS when he approached the high court.

He further accused OPS of having a “suspect motive”, and acting in “personal avarice” while filing the plea against the 11 July General Council meeting.

Supporters of E Palaniswami celebrate at his residence in Chennai. (South First)

With Justice Jayachandran noting in his order that prior notice of 15 days was not given to the members ahead of convening the meeting as mandated by the AIADMK by-laws, Vaidyanathan argued that the decision to conduct the meeting was taken on 23 June, and that it was widely reported in the media; therefore the judge was wrong in holding that a formal notice for the meeting was issued only on 1 July.

He also emphasised that the General Council was the body that had the ultimate powers as far as the party was concerned, and that the council members overwhelmingly backed EPS to be the single leader of the party.

Arguments in court

Aryama Sundaram, another lawyer appearing on behalf of EPS, argued that the single judge approached the matter by applying “company laws” to a political party governed by its own laws.

He, too, submitted that the General Council of the party was the supreme authority and not all decisions could be taken by the AIADMK’s 1.5 crore primary members.

The single judge, it may be noted, stated in his order, “Whether the views of about 2,500 General Council members really reflect the views of 1.5 crore primary members of the AIADMK is a question that needs to be examined and tested.”

Sundaram also pointed out that the judgement of the single judge created a functional deadlock in the party as it ordered that the General Council meeting could only be convened jointly by the party coordinator and the joint coordinator when the entire legal tussle emerged in the first place because both leaders were not on the same page.

‘Party by-laws were violated’

As for OPS, senior counsel Krishnakumar stated that proper notice was not given before conducting the General Council meeting on 11 July.

As per the rules of the party, he said, the notice for the meeting should have been issued 15 days before the scheduled date by both the coordinator and the joint coordinator. However, in this case, the notice was sent by the party headquarters, he noted.

Further, he stated that the contention that the General Council was supreme was against the by-laws of the AIADMK as this was a party where the general secretary, the head of the party, was appointed by the primary members — something that was envisioned by AIADMK founder MGR.

AK Sriram, appearing on behalf of a General Council member named Amman Vairamuthu, who also supported OPS, raised the issue of alleged discrepancies in the signatures obtained by the party members that were used by the EPS camp as the will of the majority.

Importantly, both sides also argued elaborately on another key point: whether the post of coordinator and joint coordinator in the AIADMK fell vacant on 23 June due to non-ratification by the General Council.