On January 11, the Supreme Court of India's division bench led by Justices Dinesh Maheswari and Hrishikesh Roy reserved its judgement in a batch of petitions relating to the political squabble between the AIADMK's two factions - Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) and AIADMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam (OPS). A Division Bench ordered that all parties submit written submissions by January 16.

The batch of petitions includes an OPS petition challenging the Madras High Court's order allowing Edappadi Palaniswami (EPS) to continue as the party's interim General Secretary.

OPS filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against an order issued on September 2 by a division bench of the Madras High Court, which reversed a single bench order to maintain the status quo regarding the AIADMK leadership as it existed prior to the election of Edappadi Palanisamy as the party's interim General Secretary on July 11.

The case boils down to a party general council meeting on July 11, last year. The AIADMK executive council appointed former Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) as interim General Secretary and expelled O. Panneerselvam (OPS) from the party for "anti-party activities" at that meeting.

The petitioners were represented by senior advocates Guru Krishna Kumar and Mr. Ranjit Kumar. Kumar argued that the division bench should not have interfered with the single judge's order because no illegality had been discovered. The party's bylaws require joint consent for general council meetings, which the division bench cannot change on the grounds of functional difficulty.

Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan, Aryama Sundaram, Mukul Rohatgi, and Atul Yeshwant Chitale appeared for the respondents, as did Advocates Balaji Srinivasan, Gowtham Kumar, and Shiva Krishnamurthi. The Respondent's side argued for two days. Vaidyanathan contended that the petitioners' arguments are merely rehashes of those advanced before the High Court, and that they are primarily concerned with certain errors in the interpretation of the AIADMK party constitution and whether the High Court was correct in its approach. Nothing perverse, no substantial question of law, and no manifest injustice, he claimed.

Case Title: Thiru K. Palaniswamy Versus M. Shanmugam & Ors
Case Number: SLP (C) No(s).11237/2022

Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/19400/19400_2022_6_25_40945_Order_11-Jan-2023.pdf