Madras HC questions maintainability of plea to restrain EC from approving AIADMK’s July 11 general council meet

It asks how can the litigant file a writ petition when he had already moved a civil suit but failed to obtain interim relief

The Madras High Court on Tuesday questioned the maintainability of a writ petition filed by S. Surya Moorthi, a member of the AIADMK, who had sought a direction to the Election Commission of India (EC) not to approve the resolutions passed at the party’s July 11 general council meeting in which former Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami was elected interim general secretary and O. Panneerselvam was removed from the primary membership.

Acting Chief Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan asked the petitioner, who argued in person, how he could file a writ petition when he had already moved a civil suit before the city civil court in connection with the same issue but could not obtain any favourable interim order. Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing Mr. Palaniswami, told the court that the EC, too, had no authority to approve or disapprove of the general council resolutions.

Referring to a similar writ petition filed by advocate B. Ramkumar Adityan of Thoothukudi last year, the senior counsel said that the litigant had urged the High Court to quash an order passed by the EC on May 4, 2018, accepting the amendments made to the party’s bylaws at the general council meeting held on September 12, 2017. He had also sought a direction to the EC to ensure that the party adhered to its original bylaws while conducting organisational elections.

On September 20, 2021, the then Chief Justice, Sanjib Banerjee, and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu dismissed Mr. Adityan’s writ petition on the ground that the EC’s acceptance of the amendments to the party rules did not appear to be out of order since such acceptance was just a ministerial act performed on receipt of communication from authorised representatives of political parties. They also said that the ECI was not expected to interfere with the internecine issues of every party.

Still, if the petitioner had any grievance, he could only approach the civil court for an appropriate remedy, the Bench had observed. Since the present writ petitioner had already approached the city civil court, he could not now file a writ petition seeking a direction to the EC, Mr. Narayan said and urged the first Division Bench, led by the Acting Chief Justice, to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability.

However, when the petitioner insisted on granting him time to read the order passed in September last, the Bench adjourned his case by two weeks.