Power of courts in settling party disputes limited

Surprisingly, excepting for the tenth schedule of the Constitution referring to the terms legislature party and original political party, there are no other special provisions. Even these two definitions have been introduced with a view to providing disqualification of a Member of Parliament or legislature on grounds of defection. 

Political parties have always had their own structure and byelaws governing them and they were hardly enforced in a court of law. A political party may be a registered society. When parties have huge properties, they have created a trust, with close-knit members governing them. It is only after the advent of the Right To Information Act, 2005, the question arose whether a political party is a public authority and whether a citizen can seek information from it. The Chief Information Commissioner (New Delhi) found that at least six all- India parties have availed several benefits, including allotment of plots, party offices, tax exemptions and therefore, they are bound to disclose information to an information seeker. That decision has been challenged by the political parties before a High Court, since their attempt to amend the RTI Act led to widespread criticism. 

When a political party is established there is no requirement of any registration under any law whether it is a Society’s Act, Companies Act or Trust Act. However, when they want to contest elections to the legislatures and Parliament they require their party’s organisational structure and byelaws to be registered with the Election Commission of India. The requirement also makes those parties subscribe to the Indian Constitution and the sovereignty of India. In that way, a political party which does not believe in parliamentary system of democracy cannot have a right to contest the elections. There are thousands of political parties registered with the EC, but not all of them are recognised political parties. Even among them, only some enjoy the status of an All India Political party. Apart from allotting a symbol to the recognized party, it is always debatable what power EC can have over them.

After the late 1960s when the ayaram gayaram politics (politics of defection) started, a serious discussion led to the introduction of a constitutional provision in the form of 10th schedule (w.e.f.1.3.1985) enabling the Speaker of the house to disqualify members defecting from one political party to another. Everyone thought that this would prevent horse-trading. However, due to the loopholes in the provision, the defection galore has not ended. Further, every decision of the Speaker is also subject to challenge before the higher courts of law.

The rift in a political party becomes public only when there are internal squabbles or fights on succession. Once the factional war starts, it first results in capturing the properties and the trusts managing them. Sometimes the elections held by the political parties (which are always arbitrary and dictatorial) are challenged in courts. As is well-known, the decision of a civil court is time-consuming. Often, the events overtake a final decision by the civil courts. 

In this scenario, if the present squabbles within the ruling AIADMK party are looked into, then it may present a confusing picture. After the demise of the party’s supremo, the succession war to the power gaddi led to the first split within the legislature party and later leading to factions within the main political party. Since the MLAs were elected only in 2016 and have four more years in office, there is no attempt to overthrow their party’s government. It is within this limited objective that the behind-the-scene operations were taking place. Keeping the elected members belonging to one faction in various resorts (whether it is Koovathur or Veerampatinam or Coorg) are only to see that they don’t defect to the other group or to bargain with them and pay their ransoms. 

When the MLAs owing allegiance to TTV Dinakaran gave a petition to the Governor, the Speaker of the House promptly issued as to why proceedings cannot be initiated for their alleged defection from the main party. It is their rival’s contention that expressing lack of faith in the legislature party leader is not an action of defection and the Speaker has no locus standi to initiate action. Similarly, both warring groups moved the EC to freeze the election symbol, and also to use the name of the main political party. The dispute raised before the EC was unending and did not produce any result except tonnes of precious stationery, wasted in the form of filing affidavits expressing allegiance to one side or the other. Both factions continued their activities by retaining the same name with small additions.

Now when the major factions have come together a third front has filed a petition before the Election Commission to continue the litigation and requested the EC to not allow the withdrawal of the dispute. Ultimately if the EC is convinced that the two major factions led by EPS and OPS are the real AIADMK, then the TTV faction will have to go before another round of litigation. 

When the merged factions called for a general council meeting, once again a suit was filed before the High Court by the MLA Vetrivel (follower of TTV Dinakaran) which was dismissed with exemplary costs. Since an order has to be obtained before the GC meet, an appeal was filed immediately and with the permission of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, heard the matter late in the evening and refused to stay the proceedings. However, the proceedings were made subject to the decision of the court later. This brought advantage to the EPS, OPS factions and the general council can proceed and adopt resolutions. It appears that they may not fill the post of General Secretary keeping with their original slogan that the late party leader was the permanent general secretary of the party. The party’s constitution is totally undemocratic since all the powers are vested with its general secretary, a joint leadership may be put in place in the name of a High Power Committee to manage the affairs of the party. 

The litigation which is instituted may not see the light of the day, but political opportunism and the love for clinging on to power may ultimately result in finding a solution outside the courts as the power of the courts in such matters is very limited and a civil litigation may continue eternally. This once again reiterates that the courts are not the places for deciding political issues.