LEGAL ISSUE: Internal management and leadership disputes within a political party.
CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Name: Thiru K. Palaniswamy vs. M. Shanmugam & Ors.
Judgment Date: 23 February 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 123
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Can a court interfere in the internal disputes of a political party? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a major political party in Tamil Nadu. This case revolved around a power struggle between factions within the party, specifically concerning the validity of meetings of the General Council and the grant of interim injunctions by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the extent to which courts can intervene in the internal affairs of political organizations.
Case Background
The AIADMK was founded in 1972 and is a registered political party with the Election Commission of India. The party’s structure includes the Central Executive Committee and the General Council. Traditionally, the party was led by a General Secretary. After the death of the then General Secretary on 05.12.2016, the party underwent significant changes. On 12.09.2017, the party amended its byelaws to establish a system of joint leadership with a Co-ordinator and a Joint Co-ordinator. However, further proposed amendments led to internal disputes and several civil suits.
The dispute intensified when the party scheduled a General Council meeting on 23.06.2022. This meeting was challenged by various factions within the party, leading to multiple court orders. The High Court initially declined to interfere, but later placed restrictions on the meeting’s agenda. This led to further legal challenges and the subsequent meeting on 11.07.2022, which is at the heart of this dispute.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1972 | AIADMK founded. |
| 05.12.2016 | Demise of the then General Secretary of AIADMK. |
| 12.09.2017 | AIADMK byelaws amended to create Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator positions. |
| 01.12.2021 | Executive Committee passes a resolution for amending byelaws. |
| 02.12.2021 | Party election for the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator notified. |
| 06.12.2021 | OPS and EPS jointly contested and were elected as Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator. |
| 23.06.2022 | General Council meeting convened, leading to disputes and court orders. |
| 11.07.2022 | General Council meeting held, adopting resolutions for single leadership. |
| 17.08.2022 | Single Judge of High Court grants interim relief and status quo ante. |
| 02.09.2022 | Division Bench of High Court sets aside the Single Judge order. |
| 23.02.2023 | Supreme Court upholds the Division Bench order. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the High Court declined to grant any injunction against the General Council meeting scheduled for 23.06.2022. However, a Division Bench of the High Court placed restrictions on the meeting’s scope. The Supreme Court stayed this order and allowed the meeting on 11.07.2022 to proceed, but left it open for parties to seek interim relief before the Single Judge. The Single Judge initially declined interim relief, but this order was later remanded by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Single Judge granted certain interim reliefs, which were then overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the AIADMK’s byelaws, particularly Rule 19(vii) and Rule 20A.
-
Rule 19(vii) of the AIADMK byelaws states:
“The General Council Meeting shall be convened once in a year or whenever it is considered necessary by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator by giving 15 days notice in advance of the date of meeting. The quorum 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, the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator should do so within 30 days of the receipt of such a requisition.” - Rule 20A outlines the powers and responsibilities of the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator.
The byelaws of the party are framed within the framework of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to form associations and manage their internal affairs, subject to certain restrictions.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the meeting on 11.07.2022 was illegal because it was not convened by the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator jointly, as required by the byelaws. They contended that the notice for the meeting was invalid due to insufficient notice period and lack of proper authorization. The appellants also argued that the balance of convenience was in their favor, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if the interim injunction was not granted.
The respondents argued that the General Council is the supreme body in the party and has the power to amend or alter the byelaws. They contended that the notice for the meeting was valid, as the byelaws do not require a written notice for special meetings. They also argued that the balance of convenience was in their favor, as the majority of the General Council members supported the resolutions passed in the meeting on 11.07.2022.
| Appellants’ Submissions | Respondents’ Submissions |
|---|---|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment, as the core issue was whether the Division Bench of the High Court was right in interfering with the Single Judge’s order of granting interim injunction.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Validity of the 11.07.2022 meeting | The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the High Court rightly concluded that the meeting was not illegal, as the notice was valid and the General Council had the power to convene the meeting. |
| Interim Injunction | The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, noting that the Single Judge had erred in assessing the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. |
Authorities
| Authority | Legal Point | How the Authority was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| S. Thirunavukkarasu and Anr. v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr. : 1997 (III) CTC 229 (High Court of Judicature at Madras) | Interpretation of AIADMK byelaws regarding convening of General Council meetings. | The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved an expelled member calling a parallel meeting, unlike the present case. |
| Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.: 1990 Supp SCC 727 (Supreme Court of India) | Principles for appellate court interference with discretionary orders. | The Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with the discretion of a lower court unless it was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. |
| State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors.: (2000) 9 SCC 572 (Supreme Court of India) | Consideration of balance of convenience in granting interim injunctions. | The Court noted that the justice of the situation is the guiding factor in granting injunctions. |
| Surya Nath Singh and Ors. v. Khedu Singh (Dead) by LRS and Ors.: 1994 Supp (3) SCC 561 (Supreme Court of India) | Discretion in granting injunctions must be exercised on settled principles of law. | The Court reiterated that the grant of injunction is discretionary but must be based on settled principles. |
| Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors.: (1985) 1 SCC 260 (Supreme Court of India) | Consideration of balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest in granting interim orders. | The Court emphasized the need to consider various factors beyond a prima facie case when granting interim orders. |
| Dalpat Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors.: (1992) 1 SCC 719 (Supreme Court of India) | Principles for granting temporary injunctions. | The Court reiterated the triple test for granting injunctions: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. |
| American Express Bank Ltd. v. Calcutta Steel Co. and Ors.: (1993) 2 SCC 199 (Supreme Court of India) | Discretion of the Court in granting declaration and injunction. | The Court emphasized that the grant of injunction is discretionary and should be exercised to further the ends of justice. |
| K. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.: (1982) 2 SCC 273 (Supreme Court of India) | Power of General Council to create, abolish, and replace posts. | The Court noted that the General Council has the power to create, abolish, and replace posts within the party. |
| Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and Ors.: AIR 1962 SC 666 (Supreme Court of India) | Interpretation of the term “notice”. | The Court held that the term “notice” does not necessarily mean communication in writing. |
| T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors.: (1964) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court of India) | Courts generally do not interfere in the internal affairs of an association. | The Court reiterated that courts should be slow to interfere in the internal management of associations. |
| Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP and Ors.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 429 (Supreme Court of India) | Principles for granting interim relief. | The Court reiterated the principles for granting interim relief, including the need to assess the risk of injustice. |
| Films Rover International Ltd. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd.: (1986) 3 All ER 772 (Chancery Division) | The court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice. | The Court referred to this case to highlight the principle that the court should choose the course of action that carries the lower risk of injustice. |
| Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden: (1990) 2 SCC 117 (Supreme Court of India) | Guidelines for granting interlocutory mandatory injunctions. | The Court referred to this case to highlight the guidelines for granting interlocutory mandatory injunctions. |
| Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and Ors.: (2006) 5 SCC 282 (Supreme Court of India) | Interference by Supreme Court under Article 136 in matters of injunction. | The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court would not interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting injunctions unless it was exercised arbitrarily. |
| Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani and Anr.: (2010) 2 SCC 142 (Supreme Court of India) | Interference by Supreme Court under Article 136 in matters of injunction. | The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court would not interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting injunctions unless it was vitiated by an error or manifest injustice. |
| Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings | Principles regarding notice of meetings. | The Court referred to this book to highlight the principles regarding notice of meetings, but ultimately did not find them applicable in the context of the case. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Meeting on 11.07.2022 was illegal | The Court held that the meeting was not illegal as the notice was valid and the General Council had the power to convene the meeting. |
| Interim injunction should be granted | The Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the interim injunction, noting that the Single Judge had erred in assessing the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. |
Authorities:
- S. Thirunavukkarasu and Anr. v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr. [1997 (III) CTC 229]: The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable to the present facts.
- Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727]: The Court reiterated the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with the discretion of a lower court unless it was exercised arbitrarily.
- State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors. [(2000) 9 SCC 572]: The Court noted that the justice of the situation is the guiding factor in granting injunctions.
- Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and Ors. [AIR 1962 SC 666]: The Court relied on this case to interpret that the term “notice” does not necessarily mean communication in writing.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the democratic functioning of the AIADMK and the supremacy of the General Council in the party’s internal affairs. The Court also took into account the practical difficulties of enforcing an interim order that would perpetuate a functional deadlock within the party. The Court emphasized that courts should be slow to interfere in the internal matters of political parties and that the balance of convenience favored allowing the party to manage its own affairs.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding democratic functioning of the party | 40% |
| Supremacy of General Council | 30% |
| Practical difficulties of enforcing the interim order | 20% |
| Non-interference in internal matters of political parties | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the party’s byelaws and the settled principles of law regarding interim injunctions. While the facts of the case played a role, the Court’s emphasis was on the legal framework and the need to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Validity of the 11.07.2022 Meeting
Step 1: Was the meeting convened by an authorized person?
Step 2: Did the notice comply with the byelaws?
Step 3: Division Bench correctly interpreted Rule 19(vii), distinguishing between regular and special meetings.
Conclusion: Meeting was not illegal.
Issue: Grant of Interim Injunction
Step 1: Did the Single Judge correctly assess the prima facie case?
Step 2: Was the balance of convenience in favor of the appellants?
Step 3: Would the appellants suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted?
Conclusion: Division Bench correctly set aside the interim injunction. Single Judge failed to weigh the risk of injustice in case the main matter went against the interim order.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Courts are generally hesitant to interfere in the internal matters of political parties.
- ✓ The General Council of a political party is considered the supreme body with the power to frame and amend rules.
- ✓ The term “notice” does not necessarily mean a written notice, and the substance of the notice is more important than its form.
- ✓ Interim injunctions should not be granted if they perpetuate a functional deadlock within an organization.
- ✓ The balance of convenience and irreparable injury must be assessed from the perspective of the party as a whole and not from the perspective of individual members.
This judgment reinforces the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of political parties and highlights the importance of adhering to the party’s byelaws. It also underscores the need for courts to consider the practical implications of their interim orders and the potential for disrupting the democratic functioning of organizations.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the interim order dated 06.07.2022 be made absolute, disposing of the appeals filed in challenge to the order dated 23.06.2022. The Court also directed that the pending civil suits be proceeded with on their own merits and in accordance with law.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts should be slow to interfere in the internal management of political parties and that the General Council of a political party is the supreme body with the power to frame and amend rules. The Court also clarified that the term “notice” does not necessarily mean a written notice and that the substance of the notice is more important than its form. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s order, emphasizing the need for courts to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of political parties and highlighting the supremacy of the General Council in the AIADMK. The Court also clarified that the term “notice” does not necessarily mean written notice and that the substance of the notice is more important than its form. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury must be assessed from the perspective of the party as a whole and not from the perspective of individual members.
Category
-
Civil Law
- Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
- Interim Injunction
- Internal Management of Political Party
-
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)
- Rule 19(vii), AIADMK Byelaws
- Rule 20A, AIADMK Byelaws
FAQ
- Q: Can courts interfere in the internal disputes of a political party?
- A: Generally, courts are hesitant to interfere in the internal matters of political parties, leaving it to the party and its members to manage their affairs.
- Q: What is the significance of the General Council in a political party?
- A: The General Council is often considered the supreme body in a political party, with the power to frame and amend rules and make decisions on party matters.
- Q: What constitutes valid notice for a meeting in a political party?
- A: The term “notice” does not necessarily mean a written notice. The substance of the notice, such as the intimation of the meeting, is more important than its form.
- Q: What factors do courts consider when granting interim injunctions in internal disputes of an organization?
- A: Courts consider the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the potential for irreparable injury. The balance of convenience is assessed from the perspective of the organization as a whole, not individual members.
- Q: What should a party do if there is a deadlock in leadership?
- A: If there is a deadlock in leadership, the party may need to find a workable solution that aligns with its byelaws and democratic principles. Courts are generally not inclined to interfere unless there is a clear violation of the law or the party’s own rules.