THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. B Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. These appeals involving inter-related issues and same set of contesting parties, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

3Copy pinpoint3. Before embarking upon the requisite details, a few preliminary comments and brief outline shall be apposite. 3.1. The matters in issue essentially relate to the internal management of a political party, All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam1, which is registered with the Election Commission of India. This political party, said to be having the primary cadre consisting of more than 1.5 crore members, has its own byelaws, which have been amended from time to time. The two upper levels of party structure include the Central Executive Committee2 and the General Council of the Central Organization3. Though, in the scheme of byelaws, the topmost position in the party was earlier assignedto the General Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on 05.12.2016, the party organisation went through a sea of changes and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, was established by way of amendment of byelaws on 12.09.2017.However, the propositions for further amendmentshave met with divergent views of different factions within the party and have led to these litigations in as many as at least five civil suits.The prayers for temporary injunction during the pendency of these civil suits have led to different orders at different stages by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on the Original side and on the Appellate side as also by this Court. 3.2. For introductory purposes, we may indicate that in the first three civil suits, being CS Nos. 102 of 2022, 106 of 2022 and 111 of 2022, 1 ‘AIADMK’, for short; hereinafter also referred to as ‘the party’ or ‘the political party’. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executive Committee’. 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the General Council’. H

p. 1126 Copy page pinpoint

A various applications seeking interim reliefs were dealt with by an order dated 22.06.2022 whereby, the learned Single Judge of the High Court declined to grant any injunction against the meeting of the General Council scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022. This order was challenged by one of the plaintiffs in an intra-court appeal, OSA No. 160 of 2022; and therein,by an order dated 23.06.2022, as passed after an early morning B hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court,though allowed the said scheduled meeting of the General Council but, placed fetters on its scope by providing that no decision shall be taken on any other matter except 23 items of draft resolution. The said order dated 23.06.2022 came to be challenged in this Court in the three appeals arising out of Special Leave C Petition (C) Nos. 11237 of 2022, 11578 of 2022 and 11579 of 2022 in this batch of matters. By way of an interim order dated 06.07.2022, this Court stayed the operation and effect of the said order dated 23.06.2022 and further to that, the next proposed meeting of the General Council slated to be held on 11.07.2022 was also permitted but while leaving it open to the parties to seek any other interim relief before the learned D Single Judge dealing with the civil suits. Before the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2022 by this Court, two more civil suits, being CS Nos. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022, came to be filed before the High Court against the said proposed meeting dated 11.07.2022. Therein again, a learned Single Judge of the High Court conducted early morning hearing on 11.07.2022 E and declined the interim relief. The said meeting dated 11.07.2022 was, accordingly, held at the scheduled time and various resolutions were adopted therein but, the said order dated 11.07.2022 was subjected to challenge in this Court and, by an order dated 27.09.2022, this Court remanded the matter for reconsideration. Thereafter, the interim relief applications in the said newly filed civil suits were decided by a learned F Single Judge of the High Court on 17.08.2022 granting certain interim reliefs and providing, inter alia, that status quo ante, as existing on 23.06.2022, shall be maintained and there would be no Executive Council or General Council meeting without joint consent of the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The said order dated 17.08.2022 was questioned G in intra-court appeals, being OSA Nos. 227 of 2022, 231 of 2022 and 232 of 2022. These three appeals were allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 02.09.2022, which is under challenge in the appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 15753 of 2022 and 15705-15706 of 2022. H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1127 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

4Copy pinpoint4. The aforesaid outline would make it clear that though the issue relating to the meetings of the General Council of the party-AIADMK has gone into serious questions with different parties having different propositions to make and different reliefs to seek but, the position obtaining as at present is that the said meeting dated 11.07.2022 has taken place and the said civil suits remain pending at different stages. The two principal orders in challenge before us, i.e., the one dated 23.06.2022 and another one dated 02.09.2022 essentially relate to the question of grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the respective civil suits. In this regard too, it is to be noticed that insofar as the order dated 23.06.2022 is concerned, the operation and effect whereof was stayed by this Court on 06.07.2022, has practically lost its relevance because of the supervening and subsequent events. The position where the contesting parties stand at present is that on one hand, the plaintiff-appellants challenging the order dated 02.09.2022 would submit that the said order is required to be set aside and that of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2022 is required to be restored, whereby interim relief was granted to them whereas, the parties opposing would support the order dated 02.09.2022 as being just and proper, requiring no interference.

5Copy pinpoint5. We have drawn the foregoing outline essentially to indicate that though there are multiple parties representing different positions before us but the matters in essence relate to the question of grant of temporary injunction in the civil suits concerning the affairs of the political party and the disputes inter se the members and the factions within the party; and then, the civil suits giving rise to the orders impugned remain pending and ought to be tried in accordance with law. Thus, even when the learned counsel for the contesting parties have made elaborate submissions on a variety of factors and facets, we would confine this judgment and our consideration to the question of grant of temporary injunction in the civil suits; and to the extent adjudication is requisite by this Court in that regard. Hence, we may not delve into the questions which are not germane to the present adjudication.

6Copy pinpoint6. With the foregoing preliminary comments, observations, and outline, we may take note of the relevant factual aspects, in brief, as follows: 6.1. A few of the basic facts which admit of no controversy are that the party-AIADMK was founded in the year 1972 and is duly recognised and registered with the Election Commission of India. The H

p. 1128 Copy page pinpoint

A party, said to be having primary cadre consisting of more than 1.5 crore members, is governed by its own byelaws. As noticed, the upper levels of party structure include the Executive Committee and the General Council. The byelaws of the party have been amended from time to time, including the amendments in the years 2011 and 2017. The propositions for further amendments are at the root of controversy in the present matters. Before taking up the questions in controversy, it may be noticed that in the scheme of the byelaws as originally framed and continued for a long time, the topmost position in the party was assigned to its General Secretary, who was to be directly elected by the primary cadre. Earlier, Dr. J. Jayalalitha washolding the said position of the General Secretary but,after her demise on 05.12.2016, the party drifted into a state of uncertainty as regards leadership. 6.2. On 29.12.2016, in a General Council meeting convened after the demise of Dr. J. Jayalalitha, Ms. V.K. Sasikala was nominated as the interim General Secretary. However, on 14.02.2017, the said interim D General Secretary came to be incarcerated in view of a judgment of this Court. Ultimately, on 28.08.2017, a notice was issued for a General Council meeting on 12.09.2017. At that stage, one of the groups in the party had staked its claim before the Election Commission of India as being in-charge of the affairs of the party. All these features of intra- party dispute at that stage are not of much implication in relation to the issues at hand. The relevant aspect has been that in the meeting of the General Council held on 12.09.2017, a unique system was put in place by amendment of the byelaws. By way of this amendment, the said late Dr. J. Jayalalitha was assigned the status of “Eternal General Secretary” of the party while providing that the said post of General Secretary would as such be abolished; andin place of the said post of General Secretary, two high level posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were created. 6.3. At this juncture, it may also be noticed that the disputes in the civil suits leading to the interim orders in question essentially relate to the two persons who were respectively elected as Co-ordinator and G Joint Co-ordinator after such amendment of the byelaws; they being the appellant of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 15753 of 2022, Thiru. O. Panneerselvam4,who was elected as the Co-ordinator and the

4 At several places and even during the course of submissions, Thiru. O. Panneerselvam has been referred to with the initials ‘OPS’. For continuity, the same initials have been assigned in his reference in this judgment.

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1129 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

respondent No. 1 of that appeal, Thiru. E.K. Palaniswamy5,who was elected as the Joint Co-ordinator. 6.4. In the amendment of the byelaws carried out on 12.09.2017, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator were assigned the powers and role that were previously entrusted to the General Secretary. Tersely put, it established a system of joint leadership in the party whereby all decisions were to be taken jointly by the said two office-holders of the party. As per the amended byelaws, the tenure of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was fixed for a period of five years. From the date of the said decision dated 12.09.2017 and until the month of May 2021, this political party-AIADMK remained in power, forming the government in the State of Tamil Nadu. C

6.5. However, on 01.12.2021, the Executive Committeeof the party passed a special resolution for amending Rules 20-A(ii), 43 and 45 of the byelaws. These amendments empowered the primary membership of the party to directly elect the persons to the said post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator and it was also provided that even when the D General Council could amend the rules of the party constitution and even when the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator could relax or make alterations in therules and regulations of the party, the provision for direct election of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator only by primary members of the party cannot be changed. The Executive Committee’s E resolution dated 01.12.2021 also provided that the said amendments would come immediately into effect but shall be approved by the General Council. 6.5.1. On 02.12.2021, the party election for the said posts of Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was notified. On 06.12.2021, OPS and F EPS jointly contested for the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator; they were elected unanimously and unopposed; the necessary certificates were issued to both of them; and the election results were notified to the Election Commission of India. It appears that further elections for the posts of office bearers of the party at different levels of the organization were conducted in terms of Rules 6 to 14 of the byelaws in different G phases commencing from 13.12.2021 and continuing until 28.04.2022, when the office bearers of the Chief Committee of Kazhagam were 5 At several places and even during the course of submissions, Thiru. E.K. Palaniswamy has been referred to with the initials ‘EPS’. For continuity, the same initials have been assigned in his reference in this judgment. H

p. 1130 Copy page pinpoint

A appointed and then, on 29.04.2022, members of the Central Executive Committee were appointed by OPS and EPS functioning jointly as Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. In the month of May, 2022, Form AA and Form BB were communicated by the party in relation to the election of Tamil Nadu Legislative Council. These forms were also signed by OPS and EPS, functioning jointly as Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. B 6.6. Until the processes aforesaid, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinatorappear to have continued to function intandemand in the spirit of joint leadership envisioned by the amended byelaws. Continuing as such, they issued a joint notice convening the meeting of General Council on 23.06.2022. This notice did not have any agenda or proposed C resolutions. However, with the issuance of this notice, a subtle simmering appears to have started within the party for return to the system of single leadership and this had been the trigger to the present litigation. It appears that on 19.06.2022, OPS sent a letter to EPS asking for adjournmentof the General Council meeting scheduled to be held on D 23.06.2022, which was replied in the negative by EPS. There had been a petition filed in Madras High Court for police protection at the meeting dated 23.06.2022. It is the case of EPS that OPS received the final version of resolution to be placed before the members of General Council by the Party Headquarters and he conveyed the consentfor the same.As noticed hereinbefore, the proposed meeting dated 23.06.2022 led to the said three civil suits, being CS Nos. 102 of 2022, 106 of 2022 and 111 of

2022. In CS No. 111 of 2022, the plaintiff, Mr. M. Shanmugam sought the reliefs of prohibitory injunction against the party as also against the General Council, the Executive Committee, the Co-ordinator, and the Joint Co-ordinator, that they may not convenethe General Council meeting proposed to be held on 23.06.2022. Two applications, OA Nos. 327 of 2022 and 328 of 2022, were also filed seeking temporary injunctionso as to restrain the defendants from placing any agenda in the General Council meeting to be held on 23.06.2022. Other OAs were alsofiled in the other civil suits but, for the sake of brevity, we are not expanding on them because the subject-matter essentially remains the same. G 6.7. The aforesaid applications with the prayer for interim order and direction were considered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.06.2022. The learned Single Judge declined to pass any interim order or to issue any interim direction; and the General Council meeting slated for 23.06.2022 was allowed to go on. The learned Single H Judge observed, inter alia, as under: -

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1131 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

“13. This Court, upon hearing the learned respective counsel and A on-going through the entire record, finds that all the parties have reported no objection for conducting the General Council meeting to be held on 23.06.2022, however, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant/Co-ordinator would strongly oppose to passing of any resolutions on the floor of the Meeting B regarding amendment of the Rules and Regulations of the 1st Defendant/Party, mainly, abolishing the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator as it would cause great prejudice to them. None of the parties have made any prima facie case for grant of interim orders. In fact, the plaintiffs have come forward with the applications seeking interim directions based upon their apprehension that resolutions may be passed in respect of amendment of the Rules and Regulations of the 1st Defendant/ Party. This Court, cannot imagine what would be going to take place during the General Council meeting held on 23.06.2022 and issued interim orders/directions in advance. In fact, it is well settled that in matter of internal issues of an association/Party, the Courts normally do not interfere, leaving it open to the association/party and its members to pass resolutions and frame a particular bye- law, rule or regulation for better administration of the Party since any decision comes forth among the Members of the General Council, it is well within their collective wisdom and this Court E cannot insist the Members to act upon in a particular manner. It is for the General Council and its members to decide and pass resolutions and this Court cannot interfere with the process of conducting the General Council meeting. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim orders/directions, except making F it clear that the General Council meeting which is scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022 shall go on. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable by 11.07.2022. Private notice is also permitted. List the matters on 11.07.2022.” G 6.8. The aforesaid order dated 22.06.2022 was questioned by the plaintiff of CS No. 111 of 2022 before the Division Bench of the High Court in OSA No. 160 of 2022.Taking note of the case of the plaintiff- appellant in the said intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court issued directions in the manner that the General Council meeting H

p. 1132 Copy page pinpoint

A slated on 23.06.2022 could go on but no decision would be taken on any item other than 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. While issuing notice, the Division Bench observed and directed in its order dated 23.06.2022 as under: - “11. Since the draft resolution approved by the respondents 4 and B 5 does not contain an item with regard to the amendment of the Rule- 20A 1 to 13, 45 and 45 (sic), we are of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an order of interim injunction. In the event of not granting any interim order in the above petition, the appellant and the 4 th respondent would be greatly prejudiced. Further, if an order of injunction is not granted, the prayer sought for in the suit will become infructuous. We are also of the view that the interim injunction sought for by the petitioner to prohibit the respondents from conducting the General Council Meeting cannot be granted. However, the General Council can discuss and take decisions only with regard to 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution, which has been approved by the respondents 4 and 5. The respondents shall not take any decision apart from the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. The General Council are at liberty to discuss any other matter apart from the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution, however, no decision shall be taken in the E General Council meeting with regard to the same. 12.In the result, we permit the respondents 4 and 5 to convene the General Council meeting at 10.00 a.m. on 23.06.2022 and we also permit the General Council to discuss and take any decision as per the Rules and Bye-Laws with regard to 23 items mentioned F in the draft resolution and we make it clear that the respondents shall not take any decision other than the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution. The members of the General Council are at liberty to discuss any other matter, however, no decision should be taken in the General Council with regard to the same. G Notice to the respondents 1 to 3 returnable by 19.07.2022.”

7Copy pinpoint7. What transpired after the aforesaid orderdated 23.06.2022 and in the meeting of the General Council that followed, has given rise toseveral disputed questions and issues. According to OPS and thepersonsstanding on his side, in the said meeting dated 23.06.2022, a H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1133 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

resolution was proposed to appoint Mr. A. Tamizh Magan Hussainas A permanent Presidium Chairman and he conferred upon himself such post of Chairman; and thereafter, during the meeting, one of the members of the General Council approached the stage and screamed out that all the 23 resolutions that were to be voted upon, stood rejected. Then, around 2000 General Council members went on to hand over a few documents in the form of alleged affidavits/requisition signed by them to the Chairman of the meeting and simultaneously made a requisitionto convene the next meeting of General Council on the date of his choice. It is alleged that the said Mr. A. Tamizh Magan Hussain announced the next date of General Council meeting as 11.07.2022 in breach of the byelaws of the party. It is the case of OPS that resolution No. 1 as tabled in the said meeting was materially different from the one which was approved by him in the email. On the other hand, it is the case of EPS and the persons standing- with him that in the said meeting dated 23.06.2022, the requisition given by 2190 members was read over and handed to the Presidium Chairman, whoannounced in the same meeting, in the presence of OPS and all the members of General Council, that the next General Council meeting based on the requisition, to discussand decide on the single leadership, would be held at the same venue on 11.07.2022 at 9:15 a.m. A report of this meeting dated 23.06.2022 was sent to the Election Commission of India alongwiththe report of Presidium Chairman on 28.06.2022. E 7.1. After the aforesaid meeting/proceedings dated 23.06.2022, a notice dated 01.07.2022 came to be issued by “Party Headquarter’s Bearers” for the General Council meeting to be held on 11.07.2022. OPS and the persons standing with him have serious questions as regards the legality and validity of the said notice dated 01.07.2022, essentially F for two reasons; one that the power to convene such meeting of General Council was with Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator acting jointly and with none other; and second, that this notice was sent only ten days before the scheduled meeting even though the byelaws require minimum 15 days’ notice. G 7.2. In the wake of the said notice dated 01.07.2022, the said Mr. M. Shanmugam(plaintiff of CS No. 111 of 2022) moved applications before the Division Bench of the High Court alleging breach of its order dated 23.06.2022. In regard to these applications, the Division Bench of the High Court made it clear, in its order dated 04.07.2022, that the H

p. 1134 Copy page pinpoint

A interim order dated 23.06.2022 was pertaining only to the meeting scheduled to be held on 23.06.2022 and the same could not be extended for an indefinite period. The Division Bench also made it clear that they were not expressing any opinion for the meeting scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022.

8Copy pinpoint8. Thus, when in the order dated 04.07.2022, the High Court declined to intervene in relation to the meeting dated 11.07.2022, on the next day i.e., on 05.07.2022, two other civil suits came to be filed, one by OPS and another by Mr. P. Vairamuthu. Before adverting to the prayers made in the said civil suits as also the interim relief applications therein, for maintaining continuity and sequence of events, we may take note of C an order passed by this Court on 06.07.2022. 8.1. While the aforesaid new civil suits and the interim relief applications were to be taken up by the High Court, the three petitions seeking special leave to appeal led by SLP(C) No. 11237 of 2022, filed in challenge to the aforesaid order dated 23.06.2022 in OSA No. 160 of D 2022, came up for consideration before this Court on 06.07.2022. After taking note of the submissions made and the events that had taken place as also the scheduled meeting dated 11.07.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 and made it clear that the meeting slated for 11.07.2022 E could proceed in accordance with law while also leaving it open for the learned Single Judge dealing with the said civil suits to examine the prayer for any other interim relief and/or to pass any other order, as may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order dated 06.07.2022 as passed by this Court reads as under: -

F “Permission to file Special Leave Petitions in Dy. No. 19425 of 2022 and Dy. No. 19419 of 2022 is granted. I.A. No. 89644 of 2022 stands rejected for applicant being not a party to the civil suit(s) relating to these petitions. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned G senior counsel appearing for the respective respondents in caveat. The matters require consideration. Issue notice, returnable in two weeks.

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1135 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Mr. Pai Amit and Mr. Goutham Shivshankar accepts notice on A behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notices, therefore, be issued to the unrepresented respondents, returnable in two weeks. Dasti service in addition to ordinary process is permitted. B Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the subject-matter of the litigation as also the contents of the order dated 22.06.2022 as passed by the learned Single Judge on the Original Side and the order dated 23.06.2022 as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dealing with the intra Court appeals, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered and C observed as under: - a. Operation and effect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 shall remain stayed. It may be clarified that though the meeting dated 23.06.2022 D (forming the subject-matter of the orders aforesaid), has already been taken place but, in view of the further steps/proceedings taken up or likely to be taken up pursuant to the impugned order and pursuant to the observations/directions made therein, and looking to the questions raised in these petitions, it appears necessary and expedient that the operation of the impugned order should remain stayed until further orders of this Court. b. So far as the Meeting of the General Council of the respondent No. 3, slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief ought to be projected and presented before the learned Single Judge dealing with civil suit(s) on the Original Side. c. We do not consider it necessary to pass any other order of interim nature and all other aspects are to be examined at the appropriate stage. G d. It is made clear that pendency of these petitions in this Court shall not be of any impediment for the learned Single Judge dealing with the civil suit(s) to examine the prayer for any other interim relief and/or to pass any other necessary order, as may be required in the facts and circumstances of the case. H

p. 1136 Copy page pinpoint

A The respondents may file counter affidavit within two weeks. List these matters after two weeks.”

9Copy pinpoint9. We may now revert to the subject-matter of, and the proceedings in, the said two civil suits, being CS No. 118 of 2022 and CS No. 119 of B 2022. 9.1. Thiru. O. Panneerselvamfiled CS No. 118 of 2022 with OA No. 368 of 2022 for interim relief while questioning the convening of General Council meeting on 11.07.2022. The main prayers in CS No. 118 of 2022 read as follows: - C “a) For a Declaration that convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date, without the joint authorization of both Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator is illegal, and in contravention to the bye laws of the 1st Defendant Party, more particularly rule 20A(iv) and 20A(v) of the rules and regulations D of AIADMK Party. b) For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date without the express authorization of both the Co- Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator.” E 9.2. The prayer in OA No. 368 of 2022 filed with the said CS No. 118 of 2022 had been as follows: - “Pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 or any other date without the express authorization of both the coordinator and joint coordinator pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 9.3. CS No. 119 of 2022 was filed by Mr. P. Vairamuthu along with application for injunctive relief (OA No. 370 of 2022). The main prayers in CS No. 119 of 2022 are as follows: - “a)For a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from convening the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 or on any other date without the express authorization of both the Co- Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator. H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1137 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

b) For a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or any A other office bearer of the party to convene the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 or any other dated without giving its members, a 15 days’ notice in advance as contemplated in the rules of the 1st Defendant party.” 9.4. In OA No. 370 of 2022, filed with the said CS No. 119 of B 2022, the prayer for interim relief had been in the following terms: - “A. Pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from convening the alleged General Council meeting of the 1st Respondent party which is scheduled to be held on 11.07.2022 based on an unsigned notice dated 01.07.2022 issued C without giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of meeting and in violation of the bye-laws of the party pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 9.5. Further to the foregoing, it is also relevant to notice that on D 07.07.2022, another interim relief application, being OA No. 379 of 2022, was filed in CS No. 119 of 2022, seeking additional interim relief in the following terms: - “A. pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents from passing any resolution relating to the abolition E of the post of Co-Ordinator and Joint Coordinator as they were elected by the primary members of the party for the term of 5 years as per the by-law 20(A)ii, 20 A(iii) and consequentially direct the Respondents from not implementing the resolutions/decisions relating to item 3,4,5,6,7 mentioned in the notice dated 01.07.2022 in the alleged General Council meeting, which is to be held on F 11.07.2022 pending disposal of the suit and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

10Copy pinpoint10. The aforesaid interim relief applications filed in relation to the said two subsequent suits were considered and decided by the learned G Single Judge of the High Court on 11.07.2022 at 09:00 a.m., a few minutes before the scheduled time of the meeting of the General Council. Learned Single Judge took note of the background aspects as also the orders passed by this Court and proceeded to dismiss the applications. H

p. 1138 Copy page pinpoint

A 10.1. Thereafter, the meeting of General Council was held on 11.07.2022, wherein certain resolutions were adopted which are the bone of contention between the parties. A summary of the resolutions adopted in the said meeting, being questioned by the plaintiffs of CS Nos. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022, could be usefully extracted from the written note filed on their behalf (while omitting paper book page numbers) as follows: B “The General Council meeting was held immediately after the said Order was delivered, and various illegal resolutions were passed at the meeting for the conversion of the leadership structure of the AIADMK from a system of joint leadership under the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator to single leadership under the post of General Secretary. Illegal resolutions were also passed at the meeting expelling the OPS and other primary members from the primary membership of the Party and removing OPS from the post of Treasurer of the Party. • Expulsion of OPS as primary member and relieving him from position of Coordinator in the Party • Expulsion of 3 other senior leaders including 2 MLAs • Reverting to Single Leadership and amendments to corresponding byelaws: Resolution 3 E • Creation of post of Interim General Secretary: Resolution 4 • Election of EPS as Interim General Secretary: Resolution 5 • Notification of elections to post of General Secretary: F Resolution 6 • Summary of Amendments to Byelaws approved o Amendments to Rule 2 of Byelaws imposing very high threshold conditions introduced for a person G to contest for elections to General Secretary. Previously, any member of the Party could contest for the post.”

11Copy pinpoint11. Even though the said meeting had taken place on 11.07.2022, the plaintiffs of the aforesaid CS Nos. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022 H questioned the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Single Judge of the

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1139 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

High Court, declining to interfere with the meeting of the given date, in this Court by way of SLP(C) Nos. 12784-12785 of 2022 and SLP(C) No. 12782 of 2022.While considering the said petitions, this Court noticed that the High Court did not adjudicate on the reliefs sought for, essentially with reference to the order dated 06.07.2022 of this Court; and formed the view that the said applications of interim reliefs ought to be reconsidered by the High Court, particularly when in the order dated 06.07.2022, there had been no restriction on powers of discretion of the High Court. The said petitions were decided on 29.07.2022 and while remanding the matter, this Court also provided that status quo as existing on the date shall be maintained by the parties until hearing of the matter by the High Court but, while making it clear that status quo order was not to be construed as any expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. The said order dated 29.07.2022 reads as under: - “1. Exemption applications are allowed.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocates for the parties at considerable length. D

3. From the record, it appears that some of the parties to the underlying dispute pending before the High Court of Madras, filed Special Leave Petitions, being Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11237 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No.11578 of 2022 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11579 of 2022, before this Court. E These petitions were listed before this Court on 06.07.2022, when this Court passed certain directions, inter alia, relating to the meeting of the General Council of respondent no. 1 to be conducted on 11.07.2022.

4. The petitioners presently before this Court filed civil suits challenging, inter alia, holding of the meeting of the General Council of respondent no. 1 dated 11.07.2022 and sought interim reliefs in the pending suits. However, vide the impugned order, rather than adjudicating on the interim reliefs, it appears that the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras has not adjudicated upon the reliefs sought. Rather, the learned Single Judge held as follows: “11. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court finds considerable force in the contentions put forth by the learned Senior counsel for the respondent/defendant. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court H

p. 1140 Copy page pinpoint

A has in unequivocal terms, observed that the Meeting of the General Council of the respondent No.3slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, having regard to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot take a contrary decision by interpreting the same as technically projected by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants, stating that if the applicants make out a prima facie case that the General Council meeting is not in accordance with law, this Court can very well interfere and override the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pass orders injuncting the respondents/defendants from convening the meeting. This Court is unable to fortify the contention put forth by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants rather amazed, for more than one reason, firstly, in the order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the learned single Judge can decide the issue regarding the convening of the General Council meeting on 11.07.2022 without bearing in mind the direction already given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; secondly, no other interim relief has been sought for before this Court by the applicants apart from not to convene the meeting, to examine and pass necessary orders by this Court; thirdly, since the order has been passed permitting the respondents/defendants to convene the meeting, if at all, the same is not proceeded in accordance with law as projected by the learned Senior counsel for the applicants, being custodian of the order, it is for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to consider this aspect of the matter and not by this Court; fourthly, all the grounds which were vehemently raised before this Court on behalf of the applicants regarding the subject meeting is not going to be proceeded in accordance with law, were in fact, very well available at the time of passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court fails to understand as to why the applicants have not brought the same to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of review and seek modification of the order instead calling upon this Court to sit over and interpret the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, being inferior and abiding by law of precedent, this Court is not inclined to venture upon such course and pass contrary orders.” H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1141 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

5. From the above, it is clear that the learned single judge has A taken the view that, by virtue of the earlier order dated 06.07.2022 passed by this Court, he is unable to properly adjudicate the matters. However, a perusal of the order dated 06.07.2022 indicates no such restriction on the power or discretion of the High Court. B

6. 1Taking into consideration the above, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to remand this issue to the High Court for reconsideration, without being influenced by any of the orders passed by this Court either in the present Special Leave Petitions or in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11237 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (C) No.11578 of 2022 and Special Leave C Petition (C) No. 11579 of 2022 respectively.

7. We request the High Court to dispose of the said matters, pending adjudication before it,expeditiously and preferablywithin a period of two weeks reckoned from the date of communication of a copy of this order. D

8. Till the High Court hears the matters, status-quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties.

9. Before parting with these matters, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is E further clarified that the status-quo order being granted today, shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. The High Court shall deal with, and decide, the matters on their own merits in accordance with law. F 10.The Special Leave Petitions and all the pending applications are disposed of on the above terms.”

12Copy pinpoint12. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge of the High Court took up for consideration the said interim relief applications inCS Nos. 118 of 2022 and 119 of 2022 and proceeded to decide the same by his order G dated 17.08.2022. Therein, the learned Single Judge formulated the points for determination in the following words: - “(1) Whether the plaintiff have locus to maintain the suit? (2) Whether the General Council Meeting dated 11.07.2022 was convened by the person authorised to convene the H Meeting?

p. 1142 Copy page pinpoint

A (3) In whose favour the prima facie case and balance of convenience lie?” 12.1. The learned Single Judge examined the facts of the case, byelaws of the party as also a Division Bench decision of the High Court concerning the same political party in S. Thirunavukkarasu and B Anr. v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr.: 1997 (III) CTC 229 and observed, inter alia, that if anything was done contrary to the party constitution and was likely to cause injury to the rights of the members, there was no bar to seek redressal from the Civil Court. The learned Single Judge also observed that the principle of indoor management would apply only in respect of deliberations in the meeting convened in C accordance with byelaws and if the process of convening the meeting itself was faulty and contrary to law, there was no bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to approach the Civil Court. Thus, the first point for determination was answered in the affirmative while holding that the plaintiffs had locus to maintain the suit as framed. D 12.2. After taking note of the rival submissions and after having surveyed through the byelaws of the party, the learned Single Judge recorded his conclusion on the second point for determination in the following terms: - “75. To put it in a nutshell: - E (i). The General Council meeting dated 11/07/2022 was not convened by person competent to convene the General Council meeting. (ii). The said meeting was not convened providing 15 days F advance notice. (iii). The contention that the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator lapsed after 23.06.2022 is borne out of imagination. The reason to claim these post fall vacant after 23/06/2022 is baseless. Invented to suit the convenience and cover up the violation of the Party Constitution. G (iv). Rule-20(A)(vii) of the Party Constitution is a provision which deals with exigencies when the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator becomes vacant before the expiry of the nominated Central Executive Committee office bearers tenure. This provision will no way give right to the temporary Presidium H Chairman to convene the General Council Meeting.

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1143 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

(v). The Sub-Rule(viii) of Rule 20-A vest with the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator, the powers and responsibility to convene the Executive Committee and General Council Meeting, to implement policies and programmes of a Party and to conduct Elections and bye-Elections for the party organ. In case, if they refuse to convene the meeting, the General Council members should resort to the 2nd limb of Rule 19(vii) of the Party Constitution. If a valid request is made by 1/5th of the total members, the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are bound to convene the meeting within 30 days of the Notice. The date of the meeting should be informed in writing, 15 days in advance. Thus, the General Council Meeting dated 11.07.2022 not convened by person authorised, also suffers short of 15 days notice in advance.” 12.3. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge dealt with the question of primafacie case and balance of convenience and held as under: - “76. The final submission made by the Learned Senior Counsel D for the respondents/defendants is that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents, who commands the support of more than 95% of the General Council Members, who were elected by the primary members. Which, in other words means that, more than 95% of the primary members are behind Thiru.Edappadi E K.Palaniswami, who has now been elected as temporary General Secretary of the Party in the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022. In that meeting, it is resolved to conduct the General Secretary Election and Election Officer already nominated for the said purpose. However, in view of the interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has directed parties to maintain status quo, the election process for the post of General Secretary not proceeded any further. The balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents/defendants, who want to run the party democratically and face the primary members to be elected as the Party General Secretary. If the prayer of the injunction acceded, it will cause irreparable loss to the respondents.

77. This Court, while considering the prayer for injunction, bound to apply the triple test, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Undoubtedly, if injunction is not granted, Thiru.Edappadi K.Palaniswami, who convened the H

p. 1144 Copy page pinpoint

A General Council meeting contrary to the written provisions of the Party Constitution will be in a more convenient position, since after the impugned meeting, the plaintiffs/applicants and few others are removed from the Party Primary Membership. They cannot even participate/contest in the proposed General Secretary Election. B

78. The balance of convenience in the given contest must be tested from the arm chair of the Primary Members who are the foundation of the Party and not from the Leaders point of view. The plea made by the respondents/defendants that the majority of the primary members in the Party feel that dual leadership causes inconvenience in the administration of the Party and they cry for Single Leadership is not based on any quantifiable data. Particularly, when the very same dual leadership were able to run the Government as Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister for nearly 4½years successfully amist (sic) various speculation and administering the Party as Joint Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator for nearly 5 years. During this period they together decided the electoral alliance, they jointly selected candidates for Elections held at all levels and fought several elections. While so, how suddenly between 20.06.2022 and 01.07.2022, the Party with more than 1 ½ crores of cadre strength decided for change the existing dispensation through 2500 old General Council Members and whether, the views of abext (sic) 2500 members really reflects the view of 1½ crores primary members are questions need to be examined and be tested. As per the party Constitution, amendments can be made, but it should be by alone following due process. It is for the members of the Party to decide about Leadership and the Court cannot interfere in their decision, but if there is patent violation of the process, there is no bar to seek remedy through Court.

79. This Court has no doubt in its mind that notice dated 01.07.2022 G calling for General Council meeting for on 11.07.2022 by a person who is not authorised to call for meeting is void ab initio. If the consequence of the void meeting allowed to sustain, it will cause inconvenience to the Party cadres, who will be uncertain about their Leadership. From the typed set of documents, this Court take notice of the fact that due to the dispute between these two H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1145 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Leaders, in the local body election held recently, the party men at the grass root those who contested the election were not able to get the recognised Election Symbol ‘two leaves’. Since, they both failed to make request to the Election Commission jointly for allocation of reserved symbol to their Party candidates, the Election Commission declined to allot reserved symbol. This is an irreparable injury as far as the partymen are concerned.” 12.4. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge disposed ofthe interim relief applications in the following terms: - “80. For the above said reasons, the Original Application Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 are disposed of, with the following directions:- (i) There shall be an order of status quo ante as on 23.06.2022. (ii) There shall be no Executive Council meeting or General Council meeting without joint consent of the Co-ordinator D Thiru.O.Panneerselvam and Joint Co-ordinator Thiru.Edappadi K.Palaniswami. (iii) There shall be no impediment for the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator on their own to convene the General Council Meeting jointly to decide the affairs of the party including amendment of the party constitution restoring Single leadership. (iv) If a proper representation from not less than 1/5th members of the total members of the General Council is received, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator shall not refuse to convene the General Council meeting. (v) The General Council meeting, on such requisition shall be convened within 30 days from the date of receipt of the requisition and it shall be held after 15 days advance Notice given in writing. G (vi) In case, the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator are of the opinion that, for any reason further direction is required for conducting the General Council meeting or need assistance of Commissioner for conducting the meeting, it is open for them to approach this Court and seek necessary relief. H

p. 1146 Copy page pinpoint

A 81. With the above directions, these Original Applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

13Copy pinpoint13. The aforesaid order dated 17.08.2022 came to be questioned in three intra-court appeals filed by EPS, being OSA Nos. 227 of 2022, 231 of 2022 and 232 of 2022. These three intra-court appeals have been B considered and allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned order dated 02.09.2022. The relevant passages in this order dated 02.09.2022 could be usefully reproduced as under: - “28. So far as the contention with regard to the convening of the General Council Meeting is concerned, the General Council C Meeting was convened by the appellant and the 1st respondent (in O.S.A.No.227of 2022) on 23.06.2022. The appellant and the 1 st respondent were also very much present in the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022. By order dated 23.06.2022 made in C.M.P.No. 9962 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.160 of 2022, this Court permitted the General Council to decide 23 Draft Resolutions and also permitted the Members to discuss other matters, however, restrained them from taking any final decision apart from 23 Draft Resolutions. In the said meeting, 2190 members gave written request to conduct General Council Meeting. Based on the said letter, it was announced in the General Council Meeting itself that the next General Council Meeting would be conducted on 11.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent was very much present at the time of such announcement. As per Rule 19(vii) of the Bye-Law of the Party, the General Council Meeting should be convened every year or as and when the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator consider it necessary by giving 15 F days notice in advance of the meeting. The quoram for the meeting shall be 1/5th of the total number of Members of the General Council. If 1/5th of the members of the General Council requests the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to convene the Special General Council Meeting, they should do so within 30 days on G receipt of such representation. It would be appropriate to extract 19(vii) of the Bye-Law both in Tamil and English version. Rule 19(vii) reads as follows: - Part vii: - The General Council Meeting shall be convened once in a year or whenever it is considered necessary by the H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1147 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator by giving 15 days notice A in advance of the date of meeting. The quoram for the meeting shall be one-fifth of the total number of members of the General Council. If one-fifth of the members of the General Council request the Co-ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator to convene the Special Meeting of the General Council, B the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator should do so within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition. On a reading of Rule 19(vii), it could be seen that the first part deals with the regular General Council Meeting which should be convened once in a year and in respect of the General Council C Meeting convened at the instance of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator. For conducting such meeting, the first part of Rule 19(vii) stipulates giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of meeting. Rule 19(vii) does not provide for any written notice for convening a meeting. The second part of Rule 19(vii) deals with the quoram for the meeting, which shall be 1/5th of the total number of members of the General Council. For convening the Special General Council Meeting at the request of 1/5th of the Members of the General Council, the same should be convened within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition by the Co- ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. The second part does not provide for giving any notice to the members of the General Council. For a requisitioner’s meeting of the General Council, Rule 19(vii) does not provide for any notice unlike the regular General Council Meeting, which requires 15 days of advance notice. The Tamil version of the Bye-Laws clearly demarcates the difference between a regular General Council Meeting and a Special General F Council Meeting based on requisition of members. The Tamil Version of the Bye-Law refers to the regular meeting and states “Merpadi Kuttathirku 15 Natkkal Mun Arivippu Kudukka Vendum”, while there is no such stipulation for the Special Meeting called by the requisitioners. For both the Meetings, the Bye-Laws G does not contemplate written notice to be issued. The notice mentioned in Rule 19(vii) is that of the meeting and not a notice to each member. It is clear that the notice can be by way of publication, affixing at notice board, announcement, etc. In the case on hand, notice of Special General Council Meeting was by H

p. 1148 Copy page pinpoint

A announcement in the 23.06.2022meeting. Therefore, the notice given by announcement on 23.06.2022 was a due notice for convening the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022. When the notice for General Council Meeting on 12.09.2017 was issued by the Headquarters office Bearers on 28.08.2017, the announcement made at the floor of the General Council Meeting B on 23.06.2022 for convening Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 can be construed as a proper notice. The word “notice”, denotes merely an intimation to the party concerned of a particular fact. It cannot be limited to “notice in writing” and only to a letter. A notice may take several forms. Even assuming C that the notice suffers from procedural irregularity, it is always open to the members of the General Council to ratify, as long as there is a substantive right/function underlying in the notice. This ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1962 SC 666 (cited supra).

D 29. Had the Framers of the Bye-Laws thought of giving 15 days notice even for the convening of the Special General Council Meeting at the request of 1/5th of the General Council members, they would have incorporated giving 15 days notice at the end of the second part of Rule 19(vii). The mentioning of giving 15 days notice in the first part would establish the intention of the framers of the Bye-Laws was to give notice to the members of the General Council only in respect of the regular Annual General Council Meeting and for the General Council Meeting convened at the instance of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator. Since the Special General Council Meeting are being convened at the request of the members of the General Council, there will not be any necessity for giving another notice to the members again for convening the Special General Council Meeting. If 15 days notice is again given even for convening Special General Council Meeting at the request of 1/5th of the members of the General Council, it leads to a situation where the meeting can be convened only between 16th and 30th day.

30. Admittedly, the Agenda for the meeting was issued on 01.07.2022. On 23.06.2022 itself a decision has been taken to convene a meeting on 11.07.2022. The requisition for convening a Special General Council Meeting signed by 2190 General Council H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1149 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

members was addressed to the Presidium Chairman, Co-Ordinator A and Joint Co-Ordinator and the same was given to the Presidium Chairman. It cannot be disputed that for convening the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022 necessarily there should be a Presidium Chairman. In the absence of Presidium Chairman, a meeting cannot be convened. Therefore, 2190 members gave a B requisition for convening a Special General Council Meeting to the Presidium Chairman for the reason that there was a rift between the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator. As already stated, the announcement with regard to the next General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 was made in the presence of the 1st respondent and also in the presence of about 2500 members. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that they did not know about the announcement made in the floor of the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022. Though Rule 19(vii) says that the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator should convene the Special General Council Meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the requisition by its 1/5th General Council members, since the Co- Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator are at loggerheads, they were not in a position to convene the Special General Council Meeting jointly. Since the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator are at loggerheads one cannot expect them to jointly convene the Special General Council Meeting and if the 2nd part of rule 19(vii) E of the Bye-Law is strictly applied then it would result in a deadlock situation. If either the Co-Ordinator or the Joint Co-Ordinator is not co-operating for convening the General Council Meeting, it would lead to a situation where no General Council Meeting could be convened. F

31. In the judgment reported in (1997) 3 CTC 229 (cited supra) the expelled member from the AIADMK Party viz., Mr. S.Thirunavukkarasu called for a General Council Meeting, parallel meeting to the meeting called by the then General Secretary Selvi J.Jayalalithaa. The General Secretary approached this Court seeking for an order of interim injunction against the convening of G parallel meeting and the same was granted in her favour. Therefore, the facts surrounding the said judgment is completely different to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, there was no parallel meeting called for by any of the Members. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in H

p. 1150 Copy page pinpoint

A (1997) 3 CTC 229 (cited supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It cannot be said as a general rule that the requisitioners have no option but to go to Court if the leaders do not call for a meeting. Such a statement would be undemocratic and illegal. When the Interim General Secretary could not act in the year 2017, the Office Bearers B stepped in to convene the meeting on 12.09.2018 (sic) based on a requisition received.

32. It is not in dispute that the General Secretary was given power to convene the General Council Meeting. After the death of Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, Mrs.V.K.Sasikala was appointed as the Interim C General Secretary and she could not perform as Interim General Secretary in the year 2017 because of her incarceration in a criminal case. Therefore, the Office Bearers convened the meeting on 12.09.2017 based on the requisition made by the Members. A similar situation has arisen now, (i.e.) since the Co-Ordinator and D the Joint Co-Ordinator are in loggerheads, the calling for the meeting by the Presidium Chairman on 23.06.2022 at the floor of the General Council Meeting cannot be termed as illegal.

33. Admittedly, there is a functional deadlock in the Party due to the stand taken by the appellant and the 1 st respondent (in E O.S.A.No.227 of 2022). Rules 5, 19(i) and 19(viii) are absolutely clear that the General Council is the Supreme body of the Party. As per the By-laws of the Party, the Executive Council has not been given power either to amend the Rules or to take any important decision. If such decision is taken, the same should be approved by the General Council of the Party. Even if the Leaders F take any decision or action apart from what has been specifically provided to them under the Rules and Regulations, they have to be ratified at the General Council. The supremacy of the General Council is because it is elected ultimately by the Primary Members in terms of Rules 6 to 14 of the Bye-Laws.

G 34. As already stated, the General Council consists of 2665 members, who were elected through the Organizational Elections under Rules 6 to 14 of the By-laws. The elected General Council Members represent the Primary Members of the Party. It cannot be disputed that the General Council is the Supreme Body in the H party. As per Rules 19(i) and 19(viii) of the Bye-Laws, the General

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1151 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Council was given authority to decide on the policy matters. As A per Rule 43 of the Bye-Laws, the General Council was given power to amend the Bye-Laws. The General Council held on 11.07.2022 was a requisitioners’ special meeting under Rule 19(vii) of the Bye-Laws. As already stated, 2190 members have made the requisition for convening a special General Council Meeting. B The requisition given at the General Council Meeting on 23.06.2022 was announced at the floor of the meeting, informing the members that a General Council Meeting would be convened on 11.07.2022. The requisition made by 2190 members was followed by an agenda, which was signed by 2432 members. The meeting was conducted on 11.07.2022 and a total of 2460 members were present in the meeting. Thereafter, 2539 members, supporting the resolutions passed in the General Council Meetings, filed affidavits before the Election Commission of India.

35. The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator could not act on the requisition since there was a dead lock in the decision making in the Party. According to the appellant, the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator had lapsed on 23.06.2022 for want of ratification. It is pertinent to note that the elections of the other members of the General Council shall not lapse since their elections were not based on any amended Bye-Law. The present situation, is identical to the situation that was prevailing in 2017. When the E Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were not in a position to call for the meeting, the members cannot be forced to approach the Court every time, therefore, the power vested on the office-bearers under Rule 20 A (vii) should be exercised for this purpose as exercised for the meeting held on 12.09.2017. F

36. For easy reference, the Bye-Laws of the Political Party is annexed with this judgement.

37. The amendments to the Bye-Laws can happen only at the General Council under Rule 43 of the Bye-Laws. G

38. The General Council Meeting was convened on 11.07.2022 pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A. Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022 and thereafter, by order dated 06.07.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 11237 of 2022 has observed as follows: - H

p. 1152 Copy page pinpoint

A “…….b. So far as the Meeting of the General Council of the respondent No. 3, slated to be held on 11.07.2022 is concerned, the same may proceed in accordance with law and in that relation, the other aspects of any interim relief ought to be projected and presented before the learned Single Judge dealing with civil suit(s) on the Original Side….” B

39. The appellant-Co-Ordinator sent a letter dated 28.06.2022 to the Election Commission of India stating that the posts of Co- Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator had lapsed for the reason that the election in the Executive Council Meeting dated 01.12.2021 was not ratified in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022. C From the said letter, it is clear that the appellant-Joint Co-Ordinator has given up his right to continue as Joint Co-Ordinator. Therefore, there is no Joint-Co-Ordinator in the Party after the said letter. The appellant cannot be compelled to continue as Joint Co-Ordinator forever. When the appellant has given up his right to continue as D Joint-Co-Ordinator, the appellant and the 1st respondent in O.S.A. No. 227 of 2022 cannot jointly conduct the General Council Meeting. The commonsenseapproach was followed on 12.09.2017, wherein the General Council Meeting was announced at the instance of the Office Bearers Party Headquarters. The strict compliance of Rule 19(vii) would lead to absurdity. In these circumstances, the General Council Meeting called for by the Presidium Chairman on 23.06.2022 to convene the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 is proper.

40. The requisition for the meeting was made by 2190 members out of the 2665 members of the General Council. This amounts to more than 80% of the General Council members. The requisition was to be made by the members for deciding the issue of the Single Leadership. The requisition was readout to all the members who were present and with their approval, it was handed over to the Chairman of the meeting on the stage in front of the requisitioners. The requisition was followed with an Agenda being signed and requested by 2432 General Council Members. Thereafter, the meeting on 11.07.2022 was attended by 2460 members and 2539 members have filed affidavits before the Election Commission of India affirming their support to the resolution passed at the General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022. H

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1153 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

41. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Original A Applications observed that since there is interpolation, it can only be a manufactured document. It is pertinent to note that none of the members, who signed the requisition or the agenda or attended the meeting, have come before this Court, claiming that they did not do so. That apart, the 1st respondent-plaintiffs has not made out any assertion in the plaint that there was no requisition that was placed at the meeting. Absolutely, there is no averment in the pleadings that the requisition letter is a fabricated document or not genuine. In the absence of any pleading or averment, the contention of the 1st respondent (in O.S.A. No. 227 of 2022) that the requisition letter given by 2190 members is not genuine cannot be accepted. When none of the 2190 members, who have signed the requisition letter to convene the Special General Council Meeting, disputed their signature or contents of the document, a third party to the said letter cannot question the same. The person who can dispute the signature can only be that particular person and not a third party. In the absence of any challenge made by the signatories to the requisition letter, the said letter cannot be held as fabricated or not genuine document. Even assuming that the Resolutions passed on 23.06.2022 and on 11.07.2022 are found to be illegal or against the Bye-Laws of the Parties, it is always open to 1/5th members of the General Council to convene a Special E General Council Meeting and reverse the resolution passed in those two meetings. In the case on hand, no such meeting was called for at the instance of 1/5th of the General Council members to reverse the decision. This would establish that no irreparable injury has been caused to the 1st respondent (in O.S.A.No.227 of F 2022).

42. The members of the General Council are representing the Primary Members of the Party and when the majority of the members of the General Council have given requisition for convening the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022 and also supported the Resolutions on 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022, G the balance of convenience cannot be held in favour of the 1st respondent. On the contrary, the balance of convenience can only be in favour of the appellant.

43. With regard to the prima facie case is concerned, (2012) 6 SCC 792 (cited supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that H

p. 1154 Copy page pinpoint

A even where prima facie case is in favour of the 1st respondent- plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by the 1st respondent on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable. In the judgement reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 (cited supra) the Apex Court held that while granting or refusing to grant interim injunction, the Court should exercise B sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court C considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of interim injunction pending the suit.

44. By giving a direction that there shall be no Executive Council D Meeting or General Council Meeting without joint consent of the Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co-Ordinator, a situation has arisen where the party, as a whole, will undergo irreparable hardship, since there is no possibility of the appellant and the 1 st respondent (in O.S.A.No.227 of 2022) acting jointly to convene a meeting, much less a General Council Meeting to discuss Single Leadership. E The direction only furthers the “functional deadlock” that was already in existence in the Party.

45. As per Rule 20A(ix), the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on important political events, policies and programmes of urgent nature which cannot brook delay and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. Such decisions and actions have to be ratified by the General Council in its next meeting. However, it is open to the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co- ordinator to obtain the views of the General Council Members on such urgent matters by post when the Council is not in session. Therefore, even if the Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator take any decision/action, the same is to be ratified at the General Council Meeting.

46. When the applications have been filed challenging the Special H General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022 and when the learned

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1155 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

Single Judge, by order dated 11.07.2022 permitted the convening of the Special General Council Meeting on 11.07.2022, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Apex Court, by order dated 29.07.2022, while remanding the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of 29.07.2022. It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court has not directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 11.07.2022 or on 23.06.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the Resolutions passed on 23.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 were not disturbed till the pronouncement of the order by the learned Single Judge in O.A. Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022 on 17.08.2022. C

47. When the Presidium Chairman had announced the date of next Special General Council Meeting based on the requisition made by 2190 members of the General Council on 23.06.2022 the 1st respondent-plaintiff should have challenged the decision taken on 23.06.2022 to convene a Special General Council Meeting on D 11.07.2022. In the case on hand, the 1strespondent has filed the suit challenging only the Special General Council Meeting held on 11.07.2022. When the 1st respondent did not challenge the Resolutions passed in the General Council Meeting held on 23.06.2022, an order of status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 cannot be granted. E

48. So far as the direction to the appellant and the 1st respondent (in O.S.A.No.227 of 2022) to conduct the Executive Council Meeting or General Council Meeting jointly is not workable, as the appellant and the 1st respondent have not been able to act together and there has been a deadlock, which has resulted in the F impossibility to perform the functions, which is the very premise based on which the General Council of the Party was held on 12.09.2017, wherein the posts of Co-Ordinator and the Joint Co- Ordinator were created and the appellant and the 1st respondent came to be elected to the said posts. G

49. Since the appellant-Joint Co-Ordinator, by his letter dated 28.06.2022 to the Election Commission of India, has stated that his post along with the post of Co-Ordinator had lapsed, as already stated, he cannot be compelled to continue in the said post. That H

p. 1156 Copy page pinpoint

A apart, the 1st respondent (in O.S.A.No.227 of 2022) alone cannot take any decision independently. In these circumstances, we are not giving any finding with regard to the stand taken by the appellant that the posts of Co-Ordinator and Joint Co-Ordinator had lapsed for want of ratification on 23.06.2022. The said issue can be decided in the pending suit. B

50. The ratio laid down in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellant squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ratio laid down by the Gauhati High Court in an unreported judgement made in CRP No.22(AP) of 2015[cited supra] applies to the case of the 1st respondent.

51. Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 (cited supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, since the facts and circumstances of the present case differs, the said ratio is not applicable to the present case.

52. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Original Application in O.A.No. 368 of 2022 in C.S. No.118 of 2022 and the Original Applications in O.A. Nos. E 370 and 379 of 2022 in C.S.No. 119 of 2022 are set aside. Consequently, the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 are dismissed. The above Original Side Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

14Copy pinpoint14. The aforesaid order dated 02.09.2022 has been challenged in the appeal arising out ofSLP (C) No. 15753 of 2022 by the plaintiffOPS and in the appeal arising out ofSLP (C) No. 15705-15706 of 2022 by the said other plaintiffP. Vairamuthu. These two petitions were entertained by this Court on 30.09.2022 and on that date, the learned counsel G appearing on behalf of EPS stated at the Bar that until hearing of these matters, there shall not be any election of the General Secretary. This Court recorded the statement so made and directed the respondents accordingly. The order dated 30.09.2022 reads as under:

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1157 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

“Issue notice. A The respective learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respective respondents, therefore, the respondents need not be served now. Notice be made returnable on 21.11.2022. To be notified with SLP (C) No. 11237 of 2022. B In the meantime, all the parties are directed to complete the pleadings. Shri C. Aryama Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated at the Bar that till the present matters are heard, there shall not be any election of the General Secretary held. We record the statement and direct the respondents accordingly.”

15Copy pinpoint15. In the above backdrop, the appeals preferred in challenge to the said order dated 02.09.2022 as also the previous order dated 23.06.2022, as passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, have been taken up by this Court for analogous hearing. However, it may be usefully reiterated that so far as the order dated 23.06.2022 is concerned, it has practically lost its relevance because of the subsequent events of holding of meeting dated 11.07.2022 and passing of other orders by the High Court and by this Court. The principal part of the matter, therefore, relates to the legality and validity of the order dated 02.09.2022.In this position and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, we have heard the respective submissions principally in relation to the order dated 02.09.2022. Though as indicated hereinbefore, a wide variety of contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the parties but, having regard to the fact that the appeals herein essentially relate to the matter of grant of temporary injunction, only the relevant submissions in that regard need to be dealt with in this judgment.

16Copy pinpoint16. We have heard the detailed and elaborate submissions of the learned senior counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the respective appellants on one hand and those of the learned senior counsel Mr. C. Aryama Sundaram, Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Atul Chitale appearing for the respective contesting respondents. 16.1. Before proceeding further, it may be indicated that while the detailed arguments were concluded on 11.01.2023 and judgment was H

p. 1158 Copy page pinpoint

A reserved, the matters were taken up again on board in view of mention made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 of SLP(C) Nos. 15705-15706 of 2022 and thereafter,this Court passed an order on 03.02.2023 for the limited purpose of making arrangements for the party, in relation to the upcoming bye-election of 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency. Therein, we provided for choosing of the candidate of the party by the B General Council and it was also provided that expulsion of the appellantOPS and other persons would not operate for that limited purpose of decision-making by the General Council; and that the choice of the candidate shall be conveyed to the Election Commission of India by the PresidiumChairman. The said order was passed in the C peculiarcircumstances and looking to the requirements of urgencyas also in the larger interest of democracy but, whilemaking it clear that such arrangement shall be without prejudice to therights of the parties and without conferring any additional right in any of the parties.6 6 The said order dated 03.02.2023 reads as under: D “In continuity with and as per the permission granted in the order dated 30.01.2023, we have heard learned counsel for the parties for the limited purpose in relation to the bye-election of 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency. We have taken note of the respective stand of the contesting parties as also the Election Commission of India in these matters. As the judgment remains reserved, we do not wish to elaborate on any of the contentious issues involved in the matters. However, having taken note of the fact that bye-election for 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency has already been announced where the last date for filing nominations is 07.02.2023, in our view, a workable solution/ interim arrangement appears to be in the interest of the political party concerned as also in the larger interest of democracy with participation of the party’s candidate in the forthcoming bye-election. Hence, after taking note of the submissions and counter-submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties as also the propositions of the learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, we deem it appropriate to make the interim arrangement only in relation to the forthcoming bye-election and only for the purpose of participation of a candidate of the party concerned. In regard to the above, without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties and without conferring any additional right in any of the parties, it is considered appropriate and hence provided thus : (1) The proposal as regards choosing the candidate of the party shall be placed for consideration and for final decision by the General Council of the party. (2) As regards the decision-making process of the General Council for choosing the candidate and looking to the time constrains, it is also provided that this process may be taken up by placing the necessary resolution for consideration by way of circulation. (3) In this process of decision-making by the General Council for arriving at the name of a candidate to be put up by the party in the forthcoming bye-election of 98- H Erode (East) Assembly Constituency, the persons who had allegedly been expelled

THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS. 1159 [DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

17Copy pinpoint17. The relevant contentions urged on behalf of the appellants in A challenge to the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 could be summarised as follows: 17.1. Learned senior counsel for the appellants have submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court could not have interfered with the order dated 17.08.2022 as passed by the learned Single Judge of the B High Court without recording a finding to the effect that the order as passed was arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to the settled principles of law regulating grant of injunctions. Highlighting the contours of an Appellate Court’s jurisdiction in such appeals, they have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.: 1990 Supp SCC 727 to submit that the Appellate Court C could interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance only when the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. D from the party [namely S/Shri O. Panneerselvam (appellant), R. Vaithilingam, J.C.D. Prabakar and P.H. Manoj Pandian] and whose expulsion is also a matter of contentions, it is provided that such expulsion shall not operate so far as the present purpose is concerned, i.e., for the purpose of decision by the General Council to choose the candidate for the forthcoming bye-election of 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency. In other words, the aforesaid four persons shall be entitled to put forward their votes in the circulation process for this limited purpose of selection of the candidate of the party for the said bye-election. (4) The ultimate decision of the General Council, as regards choice of the candidate shall be conveyed to the Election Commission of India by the Presidium Chairperson, Dr. A. Tamizh Magan Hussain; and such communication of the decision of General Council shall be accepted by the Election Commission of India as being the authorization on behalf of the party for the limited purpose of putting up its candidate in the forthcoming bye-election and the returning officer shall take necessary steps accordingly. We again make it clear that the judgment in the main matters remains reserved and this interim arrangement shall otherwise not be of conferring any additional right in any of the parties nor of taking away any of the rights of the parties. The interim arrangement in terms of this order shall remain confined to the process of bye-election of 98-Erode (East) Assembly Constituency and not beyond. Copy of this order be provided to all the parties as also to the Election Commission G of India. Having regard to the overall circumstances and the nature of order passed hereinabove, we do not find any necessity of impleadment as such of the Election Commission of India in these proceedings nor any other order appears requisite. Therefore, both the applications (for impleadment and directions) stand disposed of. Judgment remains reserved.” H