Published on July 3, 2022 at 16:14 IST
The Division Bench of Justices M. Duraiswamy and Sunder Mohan allowed the petition to be listed on Monday for hearing alleging Contempt of Court against party leaders of AIADMK party.
The plea was made in Madras High Court to restrict the meeting going to held on July 11, 2022 of general council of AIADMK party.
The Petition was filed by M. Shanmugum who is a member of General Council of AIADMK party against the leaders such as Palaniswami, C.Ve. Shanmugam, K.P. Mumusamy, Mr, Hussain, D. Jayakumar and Dindigul C. Sreenivasan.
It was alleged by the Petitioner that founder of the party M.G. Ramchandran intended that all the supreme members should be elected by the primary members, therefore the bylaws were also drafted to fulfill this purpose.
In December 2021, Panneerselvam and Palaniswami got elected as coordinator and joint coordinator with single vote process. Such election process had to be ratify by the party’s general council that met on June 23 this year.
The news came out that on June 23 Council will pass the resolution of unitary leadership so on June 22 civil suit was file to restrain this meeting.
The Single Judge bench refused to interfere in the matter of party but division in appeal restrained to pass any new resolution but allowed 23 resolutions drafted and approved by Panneerselvam.
The decision taken by the judges at their residence at night and counsels were informed about the same but then also Palaniswami made Mr. Hussain presidium chairman by passing resolution in the meeting.
The Petitioner alleged that it was not there in 23 draft resolutions which were permitted by the court and so it is contempt of court’s order.
All the respondents were guilty of contempt as Mr. Hussain’s appoint was not proper and his announcement of general council meeting on July 11 was wrong. Mr. Munusamy rejected all 23 draft resolution without providing copy and stated that party wants unitary leadership.
Further, Mr. Shanmugam were guilty of contempt by stating that appointment of Mr. Hussain was competent and also stated that Palaniswami and Panneerselvam had ceased to be in position of coordinator and joint coordinator as general meeting didn’t take place after their appointment.
The Petitioner pleaded that actions of respondents are against court’s order and so they should be charged for contempt and restraint the general council meeting which will take place on July 11, 2022.