Madras High Court directs Election Commission to file written reply to AIADMK’s plea over delay in deciding party symbol dispute. Court insists on early action as 2026 Assembly polls approach.
Chennai: Today, on July 11, the Madras High Court asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to file a written reply by July 21, 2025, in response to six petitions filed by AIADMK.
These petitions were filed to push the ECI to quickly decide if it has the power to entertain complaints made by expelled party members regarding the freezing of the party’s ‘two leaves’ election symbol.
A bench consisting of Justices R. Subramanian and K. Surender passed this direction after senior advocate Vijay Narayan, appearing for AIADMK, argued that the Election Commission had not taken any action for several months.
READ ALSO: [Defamation Suit] DMK Moves HC Against AIADMK Chief EPS, Seeks Rs 1 Cr In Damages
Mr. Narayan expressed his concern, saying that the commission was not deciding on the matter even though it had already conducted an inquiry.
Earlier, on February 12, 2025, another Division Bench with Justices Subramanian and G. Arul Murugan had given the green signal to the ECI to look into whether any rival groups were staking claim to the AIADMK name and identity.
The court had stated that the Election Commission could proceed under paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968.
However, the bench had clearly directed that the ECI must first decide on whether it had the jurisdiction to consider such complaints before going further.
Mr. Narayan, along with advocate K. Gowtham Kumar, said that the Election Commission had already completed its inquiry on April 28, 2025, but had not made a decision yet.
He requested the court to ensure that a decision is taken soon since the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections are scheduled for 2026.
He stressed the urgency, stating that “people will keep filing representations but that cannot stop a constitutional authority from passing orders within a reasonable time.” Mr. Narayan also referred to a recent Supreme Court observation that even the President of India must act within a time limit when Governors refer Bills to him. He used this to highlight that delay by a constitutional body like the Election Commission was not acceptable.
On the other side, counsel for the ECI, Niranjan Rajagopalan, told the court that the commission was examining the matter seriously and would decide on it
“as expeditiously as possible,” but said he was “not in a position to commit to a specific deadline.”
He explained that several people had submitted different representations in the AIADMK dispute and the officials had to carefully read and consider each of them before coming to a conclusion.
He added that
“the commission had received written representations even as latest as on July 3, 2025,”
which was why the matter was taking time.
He further stated that
“the ECI does not want to commit to a specific date and then end up facing contempt of court proceedings.”
His position indicated that the commission was trying to act cautiously in light of legal obligations.
Responding sharply, Mr. Narayan reiterated that
“people will keep filing representations but that cannot stop a constitutional authority from passing orders within a reasonable time.”
This argument was aimed at emphasizing that the delay by the commission could affect the fairness of the democratic process, especially with elections nearing.
After hearing both sides, the bench directed the Election Commission to file a proper written reply by July 21, 2025, so that the matter could proceed further.
The dispute involves complaints made by various individuals who were expelled from AIADMK. These individuals had approached the Election Commission seeking action against the party’s internal decisions and had asked for freezing of the party symbol.
READ ALSO: Madras High Court Bars O Paneerselvam from Using AIADMK Symbols in Ongoing Party Feud
The complainants include O. Panneerselvam’s son P. Ravindranath, along with Va. Pugazhendi, K.C. Palanisamy, B. Ramkumar Adityan, P. Gandhi, M.G. Ramachandiran, and S. Surya Moorthi.
This case holds importance as it involves not only the internal functioning of a major political party in Tamil Nadu but also touches on how far the Election Commission can go in resolving disputes within a party.
With the 2026 Assembly elections approaching, a decision on the party symbol and recognition becomes even more urgent for AIADMK.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Illegal Betting Apps
