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

- **Citation:** [2023] 7 S.C.R. 1118
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/thiru-k-palaniswamy-v-m-shanmugam-ors-37469
- **Pages:** 81

## Headnote

Injunction - Prayer for temporary injunction - Political Party
- Party Constitution - Dispute inter-se in the political party - The
topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General
Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on
05.12.2016, the party organisation went through various changes
and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator - However, when the proposition for amendments
of the byelaws, essentially to revert to the system of single leadership
at the apex level, was likely to come up in the meeting of the General
Council dated 23.06.2022, it led to the litigation - In the said meeting
(23.06.2022) resolution to propose one 'TMH' as a chairman was
proposed - It is alleged that the said 'TMH' announced next date of
General Council meeting as 11.07.2022 - Various civil suits were
filed - The Single Judge of the High Court took note of the various
interim applications and proceeded to decide the same by order
dated 17.08.2022 - It held, inter-alia, that the General Council
meeting dated 11.07.2022 was not convened by the person competent
to convene the General Council meeting - The said meeting was
not convened providing 15 days advance notice - The status quo
ante as existing on 23.06.2022 was held to be maintained and it
was directed that there would be no Executive Council meeting or
General Council meeting without the joint consent of the Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator - However, the said order was set
aside by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
order dated 17.08.2022 - On appeal, held: The Division Bench
referred to the principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary
injunction and pointed out that the directions given by the Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was leading to a situation where
the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because
there was no possibility of the appellant and the respondent No. 1-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 1118
1118
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
OPS and EPS - acting jointly to convene the meeting - The Division
Bench pointed out that the directions of the Single Judge would
only further the "functional deadlock" already existing in the party
- The logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court
stand accord with the law and also facts of the present case - So
far as convening of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned,
the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute - The said
meeting was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Coordinator jointly - They had been working in tandem until that stage
- However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately thereafter,
particularly when a proposition for amendment of the byelaws and
reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing - If
majority of members gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for convening
the General Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman
announced the date of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in
the given set of facts and circumstances, such announcement, at
least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant -
Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.08.2022 had
committed a serious error in convening of the meeting dated
11.07.2022 as an act unauthorised - Another alleged infirmity as
to 15 days' notice, the Division Bench appears to have rightly
analysed the frame of the said Rule 19(vii), where the requirement
of 15 days' notice is referable to the regular meeting and not as
such to a requisitioned or special meeting - Thus, the Single Judge
did not examine the questions in the correct perspective.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Division Bench also referred to the
principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary injunction
and pointed out that the directions given by the learned Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 189,845. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY
v.
M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 23, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Injunction - Prayer for temporary injunction - Political Party
- Party Constitution - Dispute inter-se in the political party - The
topmost position in the party was earlier assigned to the General
Secretary but, after the demise of the then General Secretary on
05.12.2016, the party organisation went through various changes
and ultimately, a system of joint leadership, by Co-ordinator and
Joint Co-ordinator - However, when the proposition for amendments
of the byelaws, essentially to revert to the system of single leadership
at the apex level, was likely to come up in the meeting of the General
Council dated 23.06.2022, it led to the litigation - In the said meeting
(23.06.2022) resolution to propose one 'TMH' as a chairman was
proposed - It is alleged that the said 'TMH' announced next date of
General Council meeting as 11.07.2022 - Various civil suits were
filed - The Single Judge of the High Court took note of the various
interim applications and proceeded to decide the same by order
dated 17.08.2022 - It held, inter-alia, that the General Council
meeting dated 11.07.2022 was not convened by the person competent
to convene the General Council meeting - The said meeting was
not convened providing 15 days advance notice - The status quo
ante as existing on 23.06.2022 was held to be maintained and it
was directed that there would be no Executive Council meeting or
General Council meeting without the joint consent of the Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator - However, the said order was set
aside by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
order dated 17.08.2022 - On appeal, held: The Division Bench
referred to the principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary
injunction and pointed out that the directions given by the Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was leading to a situation where
the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship because
there was no possibility of the appellant and the respondent No. 1-
[2023] 7 S.C.R. 1118
1118
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
OPS and EPS - acting jointly to convene the meeting - The Division
Bench pointed out that the directions of the Single Judge would
only further the "functional deadlock" already existing in the party
- The logic and reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court
stand accord with the law and also facts of the present case - So
far as convening of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned,
the same had never been in doubt or in any dispute - The said
meeting was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Coordinator jointly - They had been working in tandem until that stage
- However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately thereafter,
particularly when a proposition for amendment of the byelaws and
reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing - If
majority of members gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for convening
the General Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman
announced the date of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in
the given set of facts and circumstances, such announcement, at
least at the present stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant -
Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.08.2022 had
committed a serious error in convening of the meeting dated
11.07.2022 as an act unauthorised - Another alleged infirmity as
to 15 days' notice, the Division Bench appears to have rightly
analysed the frame of the said Rule 19(vii), where the requirement
of 15 days' notice is referable to the regular meeting and not as
such to a requisitioned or special meeting - Thus, the Single Judge
did not examine the questions in the correct perspective.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Division Bench also referred to the
principles governing the grant or refusal of temporary injunction
and pointed out that the directions given by the learned Single
Judge for convening the meeting only with the joint consent of
Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was leading to a situation
where the party as a whole would undergo irreparable hardship
because there was no possibility of the appellant and the
respondent No.1 - OPS and EPS - acting jointly to convene the
meeting. The Division Bench pointed out that the directions of
the learned Single Judge would only further the "functional
deadlock" already existing in the party. [Para 26.2][1191-B-D]
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
2. The facts of the case make it abundantly clear that so far
as convening of the meeting dated 23.06.2022 is concerned, the
same had never been in doubt or in any dispute. The said meeting
was indeed convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator
jointly. They had been working in tandem until that stage.
However, they seem to have fallen apart immediately thereafter,
particularly when a proposition for amendment of the byelaws
and reverting to the system of single leadership was in the offing.
In any case, the meeting dated 23.06.2022 was duly convened
and the efforts to prevent the same did not meet with success in
the Court. Even if the slated business was not transacted in the
meeting dated 23.06.2022, all that had happened in that meeting
could not have been ignored. It remains undeniable that the
plaintiff OPS and the persons standing with him were also very
much present in the said meeting. The General Council is said to
be consisting of 2665 members. If 2190 members out of these
2665 gave a requisition on 23.06.2022 for convening the General
Council meeting and the Presidium Chairman announced the date
of this requisitioned meeting as 11.07.2022, in the given set of
facts and circumstances, such announcement, at least at the
present stage, cannot be dubbed as wholly redundant. At that
point of time, when Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were
shown to be not functioning jointly (for whatsoever reason), a
functional deadlock came into existence for the party and a
workable solution was required to be found. In the given scenario,
the actions and steps taken by the requisitioning members as
also by the Presidium Chairman cannot be declared as
unwarranted or illegal at this stage. That being the position,
convening of meeting dated 11.07.2022 could not have been
taken as an act unauthorised. The learned Single Judge while
passing the order dated 17.08.2022 seems to have fallen in serious
error and said order was clearly suffering from perversity when
convening of the meeting dated 11.07.2022 was taken as an act
unauthorised. The Division Bench of the High Court, has rightly
looked at the substance of the matter and realities of the situation.
[Para 28.1][1192-A-G]
3. The other alleged infirmity about want of clear 15 days'
notice has also been rightly dealt with by the Division Bench of
the High Court in the impugned order dated 02.09.2022. Such an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1121
internal matter of the party, approach of the Court and that too,
while considering the prayer for interim relief, cannot be of finding
technical faults and flaws detached from the substance of the
matter. Even as regards technicalities, the Division Bench
appears to have rightly analysed the frame of the said Rule 19(vii),
where the requirement of 15 days' notice is referable to the regular
meeting and not as such to a requisitioned or special meeting.
[Para 28.2][1192-G-H; 1193-A]
4. The Single Judge of the High Court in the present matter
did not examine the questions relating to balance of convenience
and irreparable injury in the correct perspective and particularly
failed to weigh the competing possibilities and risk of injustice if
ultimately the decision of main matter would run counter to the
course being adopted and suggested in the order granting
temporary injunction in the manner and form it was being granted.
It gets perforce reiterated that if the order as passed by the
learned Single Judge was to remain in force until decision of the
suits, it would have been drastically detrimental to the interest
of political party in question, which is a recognised political party
with the Election Commission of India. In the matters of the
present nature, the simple and precise view, as stated by the
learned Single Judge at the initial stage on 22.06.2022 while
declining the prayer for interim relief, had been on the correct
statement of law that ordinarily the Court would not interfere in
the internal issues of an association/party and would leave it open
to the association/party and its members to take a particular
decision for better administration; and that had been the correct
approach towards the facts of the case. In the present case, when
General Council is shown to be the apex body of the party, taking
any exception to the meeting of the General Council could have
neither been countenanced nor interfered with by way of
temporary injunction. In the given set of facts and circumstances,
the hyper-technical suggestions as sought to be made about the
want of valid notice with reference to date, time and place of
meeting i.e., with reference to Chapter 5 from Shackleton on the
Law and Practice of Meetings do not further the cause of the
appellants, particularly when it is noticed that the date, time and
place of the meeting in question were duly declared in the meeting
dated 23.06.2022. [Para 30][1193-H; 1194-A-F]
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
5. The submission on behalf of the appellants based on the
decision in S. Thirunavukkarasu that the scheme of byelaws does
not envisage the requisitionists to convene the General Council
meeting; and if the Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator jointly
fail to convene the meeting, the only option is to seek intervention
of the Court has its own shortcomings. As rightly noticed by the
Division Bench in the order impugned, in the said case, an
expelled member of the party called for a General Council
meeting, parallel to the meeting called by the then General
Secretary. In the given fact situation, the Court granted interim
injunction in favour of the General Secretary against convening
of the parallel meeting. In the present matter, no parallel meeting
of General Council has been called for or requisitioned by any of
the Members. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly
observed that as a general rule, it cannot be laid down that the
requisitionists have no option but only to go to the Court if the
meeting is not convened. It has also been pointed out that in the
past, when the interim General Secretary could not act in the
year 2017, the Office Bearers stepped in and convened the
meeting based on a requisition received. The present situation
too, where the position as occupied earlier by the General
Secretary was assigned to the Co-ordinator and the Joint Coordinator in their jointness and it remains beyond a shadow of
doubt that Co-ordinator and the Joint Co-ordinator do not stand
in jointness and cannot act jointly, is akin to the situation when
the apex position holder was not in a position to act. Obviously, a
workable solution was to be found; and when the solution as found
and applied, does not otherwise appear offending the spirit of
byelaws as also the norms of functioning of an association or a
party, it cannot be said that declaration of the Presidium Chairman
for the meeting of the General Council on 11.07.2022 and the
follow-up notice by the Office Bearers at Party Headquarters had
been wholly unauthorised. [Para 31][1194-F-H; 1195-A-D]
6. It is also noteworthy that the ultimate injunction issued
by the Single Judge had been that of restoring status quo ante as
on 23.06.2022 and further to that, the learned Single Judge
directed that the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator would have
to function jointly; meetings have to be called with their joint
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1123
consent; and on being properly requisitioned, they would not
refuse to convene the General Council meeting and that they
could approach the Court for necessary directions for conducting
the General Council meeting. Apart from the fact that the injunction
as issued by the learned Single Judge had been far away and
beyond the scope of applications before him, the said injunction
could have only perpetuated the functional deadlock in the party.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge could not have
been countenanced from any angle and thus, the Division Bench,
has rightly interfered with the same. [Para 33][1196-B-D]
Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v.
S.L. Vaswani and Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 142; Nilkantha
Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna
Ningashetti and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 666 : [1962] SCR
551; Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Raj Grow Impex
LLP and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 429 - relied on.
S. Thirunavukkarasu and Anr. v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha
and Anr. 1997 (III) CTC 229; Wander Ltd. and Anr. v.
Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990) Supp SCC 727; State of
Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 572
: [2000] 3 SCR 301; Surya Nath Singh and Ors. v.
Khedu Singh (Dead) by LRS and Ors. (1994) 3 Supp
SCC 561; Assistant Collector of Central Excise,
Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and
Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 260 : [1985] 2 SCR 190; Dalpat
Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors. (1992) 1
SCC 719 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 472; American Express
Bank Ltd. v. Calcutta Steel Co. and Ors. (1993) 2 SCC
199 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 833; Seema Arshad Zaheer
and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and
Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 282 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 865;
K. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
(1982) 2 SCC 273 : [1982] 3 SCR 628; B. N.
Viswanathan and Anr. v. Tiffin's Barytes, Asbestos and
Paints Ltd. (1953) 66 LW 124; T.P. Daver v. Lodge
Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. (1964) 1 SCR
1- referred to.
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
"Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings"
Edited by Madeleine Cordes, John Pugh-Smith, 13th
ed., Thomson Reuters at p. 41 (Para 17.2) - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 3 SCR 301
referred to
Para 17.3
[1985] 2 SCR 190
referred to
Para 17.5
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 472
referred to
Para 17.5
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 833
referred to
Para 17.5
[2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 865
referred to
Para 18.1
[1982] 3 SCR 628
referred to
Para 18.2
[1962] SCR 551
relied on
Para 18.3
[1964] 1 SCR 1
referred to
Para 18.4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1392
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CMP No. 9962 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1393, 1394, 1395 and 1396-1397 of 2023.
Mukul Rohatgi, C A Sundaram, Atul Chitale, C. S. Vidyanathan,
Guru Krishna Kumar, Parag P. Tripathi, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs.,
Gowtham Kumar, Balaji Srinivasan, Shiva Krishnamurti, Mrs. Lakshmi
Rao, Thangadurai, Ms. Rohini Musa, Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi, Goutham
Shivshankar, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Shantanu Singh, Ravi Sehgal, Adit
Jayeshbhai Shah, Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Barua, Ms.
Awantika Manohar, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ankit Agarwal, Prateek Dhankhar,
Vinodh Kanna B., Ms. Garima Jain, Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj,
Abhiyudaya Vats, Saurabh Agrawal, Ms. Komal Mundra, Ms. Sonali
Suryawanshi, Arunava Mukherjee, Ashutosh Kumar, Ms. Mahamaya
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
Chatterjee, P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Sachin Kumar
Verma, Surya Narayan Patro, Ms. Yakeen Bishoyi, Akshat Shrivastava,
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. 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'.
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1127
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
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
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 intraparty 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
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
4At 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1129
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.
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
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
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 Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator was notified. On 06.12.2021, OPS and
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
phases commencing from 13.12.2021 and continuing until 28.04.2022,
when the office bearers of the Chief Committee of Kazhagam were
5At 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.
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
appointed and then, on 29.04.2022, members of the Central Executive
Committee were appointed by OPS and EPS functioning jointly as Coordinator 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.
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
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
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.
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
Judge observed, inter alia, as under: -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
"13. This Court, upon hearing the learned respective counsel and
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
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 byelaw, 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
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
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."
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 plaintiffappellant in the said intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High
Court issued directions in the manner that the General Council meeting
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
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
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 4th 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
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
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.
Notice to the respondents 1 to 3 returnable by 19.07.2022."
7. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
resolution was proposed to appoint Mr. A. Tamizh Magan Hussainas
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.
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
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.
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
THIRU K. PALANISWAMY v. M. SHANMUGAM & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
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.
8. 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
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.