Debangana Ray
Published on July 11, 2022 at 16:16 IST
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy of Madras HC passed the order dismissing the pleas moved by former Chief minister, O Panneerselvam and others seeking to stall the meeting. The court refused to stall the general council meeting of AIADMK.
Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy while delivering judgement observed that, “It is very unfortunate that a leader, in the capacity of the coordinator, has time and again rushed to this court, seeking interference, instead of approaching the general council and participating in the general council meeting.”
“As well as convince one and all the members by introducing his ideas and plans towards the welfare of the party members and development of the party so as to gain the confidence of the members to act in his favour.”
He also added that, “What the applicant could not achieve, wants to achieve through the court of law and the courts will certainly refrain from interfering in the private affairs of the party, that too at the instance of just one or two members contrary to the interests of thousands of other members of the party.”
It is a well-established principle which provides that the acts of the management are within the powers of the party itself any dispute between individual members of the party and those responsible for its management must be decided by the machinery provided by the rules and not in a court of law, Justice Krishnan Ramaswamy asserted.
The High Court has also observed that there is no ambiguity in the order passed by the Supreme Court that, “Since in clear terms the apex court has observed that so far as the general council slated to be held on July 11 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief that would be projected and presented before the single judge.”
While concluding the hearing the court added that, “Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the general council meeting as scheduled can be proceeded with in accordance with law as already directed by the Supreme Court.”