Summary
AIADMK had been run since 2017 by O. Panneerselvam and Edappadi K. Palaniswami acting jointly as Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. After they fell out, a General Council meeting on 11.07.2022, called on a requisition by 2,190 of its 2,665 members, restored single leadership and expelled Panneerselvam. A Madras High Court Single Judge restored the position as on 23.06.2022, but a Division Bench set that injunction aside. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench. It found that convening the meeting was not unauthorised in the functional deadlock and that the 15-day notice rule did not govern requisitioned meetings. The balance of convenience lay against restraining the party's supreme body, and the validity of the resolutions was left open in the pending suits.
Issues
- Whether the Division Bench of the Madras High Court rightly set aside the Single Judge's temporary injunction restoring status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 and barring any Executive or General Council meeting without the joint consent of the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator.
- Whether the General Council meeting of 11.07.2022, announced by the Presidium Chairman on a requisition of more than one-fifth of the members and notified by headquarters office-bearers, was prima facie unauthorised or invalid for want of 15 days' notice under Rule 19(vii) of the party byelaws.
Provisions considered
- Rules 5(vii), 19(i), 19(vii), 19(viii), 20-A(iv), (vii), (viii), 23 and 43, AIADMK Rules and Regulations (party byelaws)The General Council is the supreme body with power to amend the byelaws; Rule 19(vii) requires 15 days' notice for the regular meeting convened annually or by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, but on a requisition by one-fifth of members they need only convene a special meeting within 30 days; where the joint office-holders were at loggerheads, the requisitionists' route, as followed by office-bearers in 2017, did not offend the spirit of the byelaws. (¶¶ 23, 28, 28.1, 28.2, 31)
- Order XXXIX (temporary injunction), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Following Dalpat Kumar, Seema Arshad Zaheer, Skyline Education Institute and Raj Grow Impex, a temporary injunction requires prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, with the court choosing the course carrying the lower risk of injustice; an appellate court may interfere under Wander v. Antox where discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely or against settled principles. (¶¶ 21.2, 21.6, 21.8, 21.9, 22, 26.3, 30)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court confined itself to whether temporary injunction against convening the 11.07.2022 meeting was rightly refused, leaving the substance of the resolutions, which were not challenged in the suits, to be agitated in accordance with law. (¶¶ 5, 15, 20.1, 35)
Held
- The 23.06.2022 meeting was undisputedly convened jointly and the Co-ordinator was present when 2,190 members requisitioned another meeting and the Presidium Chairman announced it for 11.07.2022; given the functional deadlock between the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, the steps of the requisitionists, the Presidium Chairman and the headquarters office-bearers could not be dubbed unauthorised at the interim stage, and the Single Judge's contrary finding was perverse. On notice, the court in an internal party matter at the interim stage should not hunt for technical flaws, and in any event the 15-day requirement applies to regular meetings, while date, time and place were declared on 23.06.2022. (¶¶ 28, 28.1, 28.2, 30)
- S. Thirunavukkarasu, where an expelled member called a parallel meeting, does not lay down that requisitionists must always go to court; the present situation was akin to 2017 when the apex office-holder could not act and office-bearers convened a requisitioned meeting. Courts ordinarily do not interfere in the internal affairs of an association or party (T.P. Daver), and how a party manages its affairs and amends its byelaws is for its governing body. (¶¶ 21.11, 30, 31, 32)
- Even assuming some prima facie case, the Single Judge assessed balance of convenience and irreparable injury from the wrong angle, by reference to the fallout of the meeting and the views of primary members rather than the General Council's authority, and failed to weigh the risk of injustice; an injunction requiring the estranged office-holders to act jointly went beyond the applications, demanded a practical impossibility and would perpetuate the deadlock to the party's grave detriment. The plaintiffs' framing of the party as represented by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly did not accord with reality. (¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 33, 34)
Result
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 15753 of 2022 and 15705-15706 of 2022 dismissed and the Division Bench order dated 02.09.2022 in OSA Nos. 227, 231 and 232 of 2022 affirmed; appeals against the order dated 23.06.2022 in OSA No. 160 of 2022 disposed of by making the stay order of 06.07.2022 absolute; validity of the 11.07.2022 resolutions left open and observations not to affect the pending suits; parties to bear their own costs.