The issue began after an individual named S. Surya Moorthi submitted a representation to the ECI on February 12, 2024, seeking the freezing of the AIADMK’s ‘two leaves’ election symbol. Moorthi also filed a writ petition on February 14, 2024, asking the court to direct the ECI to address the representation.
Madras: On January 9, 2025, the Madras High Court temporarily stayed all proceedings being conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the internal disputes of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
The case revolves around the representations made by expelled AIADMK members, including P. Ravindranath, K.C. Palanisamy, Va Pugazhendi, and three others, concerning the internal affairs of the party.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and C. Kumarappan issued this interim order after admitting six writ petitions filed by the AIADMK.
BRIEF:
These petitions were filed on behalf of the party’s general secretary, Edappadi K. Palaniswami, requesting the court to prevent the ECI from conducting any quasi-judicial proceedings based on the complaints of expelled party members. The AIADMK argued that the ECI had no jurisdiction to intervene in internal party matters.
The issue began after an individual named S. Surya Moorthi submitted a representation to the ECI on February 12, 2024, seeking the freezing of the AIADMK’s ‘two leaves’ election symbol.
Moorthi also filed a writ petition on February 14, 2024, asking the court to direct the ECI to address the representation.
A Division Bench led by Justice Subramanian had disposed of this petition on December 4, 2024, after noting that the ECI had promised to decide on the matter within four weeks.
However, the ECI began issuing notices to the AIADMK in relation to multiple representations made by former members of the party, including Ravindranath (the son of former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam), Palanisamy, Pugazhendi, B. Ramkumar Adityan of Thoothukudi, P. Gandhi of Madurai, and M.G. Ramachandiran of Ranipet. The AIADMK expressed concern over this and questioned whether the ECI had the authority to handle such matters.
READ ALSO: [Defamation Suit] DMK Moves HC Against AIADMK Chief EPS, Seeks Rs 1 Cr In Damages
Senior counsel C. Aryama Sundaram, who represented the party, argued in court that the ECI’s actions were beyond its jurisdiction.
He stated, “The grievances raised by the six individuals would not fall either under the Representation of the People Act of 1950 or the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968.”
He also pointed out that several civil suits related to the leadership dispute within the party were still pending in the High Court, although interim relief requests had been rejected by the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Sundaram referred to an affidavit filed by the ECI in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court in connection with the AIADMK leadership dispute.
In the affidavit, the ECI had stated, “It does not regulate or monitor intra-party functions or organisational elections of any political party as the same is envisaged neither under the Constitution of India nor under any other law.” The ECI had also clarified that it only required the results of intra-party elections for updating its records.
Sundaram further argued, “There are multiple judgments by different Division Benches of the Madras High Court which had ruled that it is only a ministerial act performed by the ECI and nothing more. Therefore, now, it cannot conduct quasi-judicial proceedings on the issue.”
In response, ECI’s counsel, Niranjan Rajagopalan, contended that the AIADMK’s writ petitions were based on an incorrect assumption.
READ ALSO: Madras High Court Bars O Paneerselvam from Using AIADMK Symbols in Ongoing Party Feud
He argued, “Let the petitioner not presume so,” and asserted that a writ of prohibition against the ECI would not be maintainable. Rajagopalan also asked for the opportunity to file a counter affidavit to present further submissions.
Justice Subramanian, while addressing the issue, made it clear that his bench had not issued any direction for the ECI to consider Surya Moorthi’s representation.
He stated, “We only recorded the statement of the counsel for ECI that the representation would be considered within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition.”
The judge also expressed concerns about the ECI’s involvement in internal party matters, particularly as there were ongoing civil suits related to the leadership dispute.
He remarked, “How the ECI could venture upon to decide intra-party issues especially when they were a subject matter of multiple civil suits pending before the High Court.”
Justice Subramanian further observed that the ECI appeared to have taken upon itself the jurisdiction to intervene in these matters based on the order passed in Surya Moorthi’s case, even though that order did not grant the ECI such authority.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
