GC meet flouted bye-laws: HC; AIADMK back to dual leadership

CHENNAI: Holding that the presidium chairman was not an authorised person to convene the general council meeting on July 11 and that the mandatory 15-day notice was not issued for it, the Madras High Court on Wednesday ordered status quo as on June 23 thereby striking down Edappadi K Palaniswami’s election as the interim general secretary of the AIADMK and other decisions taken during the contentious meeting.

Even as it is a major relief for ousted leader O Panneerselvam, all is not lost for Palaniswami, as the judge made it clear that a meeting of the general council should be convened if one-fifth of its members sought it.

Justice G Jayachandran passed the orders on disposing of the suits filed by OPS and his supporter Amman P Vairamuthu, who sought a direction to declare the July 11 general council meeting invalid due to shortcomings, including that it was not convened with the joint consent of the coordinator and joint coordinator and that 15-day prior notice was not issued as per bye-laws.

“As per Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule 20-A of AIADMK bye-laws, there shall be no executive council meeting or general council meeting without the joint consent of the coordinator O Panneerselvam and joint coordinator Edappadi K Palaniswami,” the judge said.

There would be no impediment for the coordinator and joint coordinator to convene the GC meeting jointly to decide on party affairs, including amending its constitution to restore single leadership.

On the other hand, as per Rule 19 (vii), if one-fifth of the total GC members are requesting to conduct the meeting, the coordinator and joint coordinator should convene it within 30 days of notice, he said.

“The date of the meeting should be informed in writing 15 days in advance. Thus, the GC meeting on July 11 was not convened by a person authorised (presidium chairman) and also suffers short of 15-day notice,” the judge said.

If for any reason the two leaders feel that they need the assistance of a commissioner or further directions to conduct the meeting, they could approach the court, Justice Jayachandran added.

Appearing for Palaniswami, senior advocate Vijay Narayan argued that the amendment to the bye-laws to elect coordinator and joint coordinator was not ratified by the GC meeting held on June 23.

“Therefore, the positions of coordinator and joint coordinator turned vacant,” he submitted.

But the court said it found nothing to indicate that the decision was intended to be placed before the GC meeting for ratification. Noting that the party constitution does not require ratification of their election by the GC, the judge said “an illusion is created as if the duly elected post of coordinator and joint coordinator lapsed/vacated”.