The Delhi High Court has once again brought the AIADMK symbol dispute into the limelight by scheduling the next hearing for March 14, 2024. This case has been a focal point of Tamil Nadu politics since the demise of the party’s matriarch, Jayalalithaa, in 2016, which led to the emergence of rival factions within the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
Also Read- Andhra Pradesh High Court Acknowledges Complexity Of Adolescent Love In Bail Decision (lawchakra.in)
Justice Sachin Datta presided over the recent session, marking another chapter in the ongoing legal battle over the iconic “two leaves” symbol of the AIADMK. The dispute underscores the internal strife and division within the party, spotlighting the factions led by O. Panneerselvam and E. Palaniswamy on one side, and V.K. Sasikala on the other, each claiming rightful leadership and ownership of the party’s symbol.
During the proceedings, Advocate Kartik Venu, representing one of the factions, shed light on the internal discord, emphasizing the split between the two groups, each rallying behind a different leader. This division within the AIADMK has led to a complex legal struggle, with both sides seeking validation and control over the party’s future direction and identity.
The Election Commission of India (ECI), represented by its standing counsel Ankit Agarwal and Advocate Ashish Shukla, countered the arguments presented by the factions. They pointed out that the petitioner’s focus was primarily on the “two leaves” symbol, without any formal representation submitted to the ECI. The counsel stressed that the petitioner, claiming membership but not leadership, lacked the legal standing to represent the party. They further argued that to claim representation and the party symbol, the petitioner would need to demonstrate a legislative majority.
Also Read- Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Young Man In Pune Stabbing Case (lawchakra.in)
The legal representatives of the ECI clarified that in cases of such disputes, the Commission would issue notices to all concerned factions, taking action as deemed appropriate under Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, 1968. This procedure ensures that all parties involved have a fair chance to present their case and that the decision is made in accordance with democratic principles and party bylaws.
The roots of this legal tussle trace back to the power vacuum left by Jayalalithaa’s passing, which fractured the party into competing segments. The subsequent legal battles have not only been about the symbolic representation but also about the underlying issues of party democracy and legislative majority. Last year, the high court directed the Election Commission to address the party’s request for updates to its amended bylaws on the ECI’s website, highlighting the ongoing nature of this dispute.
As the AIADMK symbol case is set to be revisited on March 14, 2024, the political landscape of Tamil Nadu watches closely. The outcome of this case could significantly influence the party’s structure, leadership, and future direction. The ongoing saga reflects the challenges political parties face in maintaining unity and navigating the complexities of legal and democratic frameworks.
Case Title: VA Pugazhendi v The Election Commission Of India
