Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Order in AIADMK Leadership Dispute: Thiru K. Palaniswamy vs. M. Shanmugam & Ors. (23 February 2023)

Case Background

The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a major political party in Tamil Nadu, faced internal turmoil following the death of its General Secretary, Dr. J. Jayalalitha, on 05.12.2016. Initially, Ms. V.K. Sasikala was nominated as interim General Secretary on 29.12.2016. However, due to her incarceration on 14.02.2017, the party underwent significant changes. On 12.09.2017, the party byelaws were amended, abolishing the post of General Secretary and creating the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, assigning the powers and roles previously held by the General Secretary. Thiru. O. Panneerselvam (OPS) was elected as Co-ordinator and Thiru. E.K. Palaniswamy (EPS) as Joint Co-ordinator. This arrangement continued until disputes arose regarding further amendments to the byelaws, particularly concerning the move towards a single leadership structure.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial civil suits (CS Nos. 102, 106, and 111 of 2022) sought to prevent the General Council meeting scheduled for 23.06.2022. A Single Judge of the High Court declined to grant any injunction against the meeting. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, in an intra-court appeal, allowed the meeting but restricted its agenda to 23 draft resolutions. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which stayed the Division Bench’s order and allowed the meeting scheduled for 11.07.2022 to proceed, leaving it open for the Single Judge to examine any interim relief applications. Subsequently, two more civil suits (CS Nos. 118 and 119 of 2022) were filed against the 11.07.2022 meeting. The Single Judge initially declined to grant interim relief, but after the Supreme Court remanded the matter, the Single Judge granted interim relief on 17.08.2022, ordering status quo ante as of 23.06.2022. This order was then challenged and set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court on 02.09.2022, which is the subject of the present Supreme Court appeal.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the AIADMK’s byelaws, particularly concerning the powers of the General Council, Co-ordinator, and Joint Co-ordinator. Key provisions include:

• ✓ Rule 19(vii) of the AIADMK byelaws: “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.” This rule outlines the procedure for convening General Council meetings, specifying a 15-day notice for regular meetings and a 30-day period for special meetings upon requisition by members.
• ✓ Rule 20-A(viii) of the AIADMK byelaws: This rule assigns the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator the powers and responsibilities to convene Executive and General Council meetings, implement policies, and conduct elections.
• ✓ Rule 43 of the AIADMK byelaws: This rule grants the General Council the power to frame, amend, or delete any of the rules of the party constitution.
• ✓ Rule 45 of the AIADMK byelaws: This rule authorizes the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator to relax or make alterations to any of the rules and regulations of the party.

The Supreme Court also considered the principle that courts generally do not interfere in the internal affairs of associations, as highlighted in T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. : (1964) 1 SCR 1.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (OPS and his supporters):

• ✓ The Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with the Single Judge’s order without finding it arbitrary or perverse. They relied on Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. : 1990 Supp SCC 727, arguing that an appellate court should not substitute its discretion unless the lower court’s decision was clearly flawed.
• ✓ The General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022 was illegal because it was not convened by the authorized persons (Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator). They argued that the Presidium Chairman had no authority to announce the meeting and that the notice issued by the “Party Headquarters Bearers” was invalid.
• ✓ The notice for the 11.07.2022 meeting did not comply with the 15-day notice period required under Rule 19(vii) of the AIADMK byelaws. They cited Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings to emphasize the importance of proper notice.
• ✓ The balance of convenience favored granting an injunction because the resolutions passed in the 11.07.2022 meeting led to the expulsion of OPS and his supporters, causing irreparable injury. They cited State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors. : (2000) 9 SCC 572 and Surya Nath Singh and Ors. v. Khedu Singh (Dead) by LRS and Ors.: 1994 Supp (3) SCC 561, to argue that the balance of convenience should be seen from the perspective of justice.
• ✓ They relied on Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. : (1985) 1 SCC 260, Dalpat Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors. : (1992) 1 SCC 719, and American Express Bank Ltd. v. Calcutta Steel Co. and Ors. : (1993) 2 SCC 199, to emphasize the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and prevention of irreparable injury for granting interim injunctions.

Respondents’ Arguments (EPS and his supporters):

• ✓ The Supreme Court should not interfere with the High Court’s discretionary decision unless there is a clear error or perversity. They cited Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and Ors. : (2006) 5 SCC 282 and Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani and Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 142, to support this claim.
• ✓ The General Council is the supreme authority in the party, with the power to amend byelaws, as per Rules 5, 19(i), 19(viii), and 43 of the AIADMK byelaws. They cited K. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : (1982) 2 SCC 273, to argue that the General Council can create, abolish, and replace posts.
• ✓ The notice for the 11.07.2022 meeting was valid as the byelaws only require notice of the meeting, not a formal written notice to each member. They argued that the 15-day notice requirement only applies to regular meetings, not special meetings. They cited Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and Ors. : AIR 1962 SC 666, to support that notice doesn’t necessarily mean written notice.
• ✓ The party faced a functional deadlock due to the conflict between the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator, justifying the actions of the Presidium Chairman. They relied on B.N. Viswanathan and Anr. v. Tiffin’s Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd.: (1953) 66 LW 1 24, to argue that the General Body can act when the board cannot function.
• ✓ Courts should be slow to interfere in the internal affairs of associations, as per T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. : (1964) 1 SCR 1.

Rejoinder Arguments (Appellants):

• ✓ The claim of a “functional deadlock” was disingenuous, as the party had been functioning smoothly until 23.06.2022.
• ✓ The Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator are directly elected by the primary members and are not subordinate to the General Council.
• ✓ If the posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator lapsed, then all other office-bearer elections after the 01.12.2021 amendment would also be annulled.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Single Judge granting interim relief.
2. Whether the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022 was validly convened.
3. Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favored granting an interim injunction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ S. Thirunavukkarasu and Anr. v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha and Anr. : 1997 (III) CTC 229 [High Court of Judicature at Madras] was distinguished, as it involved a parallel meeting called by an expelled member, unlike the present case.
• ✓ Wander Ltd. and Anr. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. : 1990 Supp SCC 727 [Supreme Court of India] was explained, emphasizing that an appellate court should not interfere with the discretion of the lower court unless it is arbitrary or perverse.
• ✓ State of Karnataka v. State of A.P. and Ors. : (2000) 9 SCC 572 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, highlighting that justice of the situation should guide the grant of injunctions.
• ✓ Surya Nath Singh and Ors. v. Khedu Singh (Dead) by LRS and Ors.: 1994 Supp (3) SCC 561 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, emphasizing that the grant of injunction must be based on settled principles of law to advance justice.
• ✓ Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. : (1985) 1 SCC 260 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, emphasizing that interim orders should consider balance of convenience, public interest, and irreparable injury.
• ✓ Dalpat Kumar and Anr. v. Prahlad Singh and Ors. : (1992) 1 SCC 719 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, emphasizing the conditions for granting temporary injunction: 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] was referred to, emphasizing that discretion in granting injunctions should be exercised to further the ends of justice.
• ✓ Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and Ors. : (2006) 5 SCC 282 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, emphasizing that interference under Article 136 is limited to cases of arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion.
• ✓ Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited v. S.L. Vaswani and Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 142 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, emphasizing that interference under Article 136 is limited to cases of vitiated discretion.
• ✓ K. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : (1982) 2 SCC 273 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, establishing that the General Council has the power to create, abolish, and replace posts.
• ✓ Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti and Ors. : AIR 1962 SC 666 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, establishing that notice does not necessarily mean communication in writing.
• ✓ B.N. Viswanathan and Anr. v. Tiffin’s Barytes, Asbestos and Paints Ltd.: (1953) 66 LW 1 24 [High Court of Judicature at Madras] was referred to, establishing that the General Body can act when the board cannot function.
• ✓ T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and Ors. : (1964) 1 SCR 1 [Supreme Court of India] was referred to, establishing that Courts generally do not interfere in internal affairs 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] was referred to, emphasizing that balance of convenience and irreparable injury are critical for grant of interim relief.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of a political party and to ensure that the party could function effectively. The Court emphasized the importance of the General Council as the supreme body of the party and the need to respect the decisions taken by a majority of its members. The court also weighed the potential for a “functional deadlock” if the interim injunction was granted, which would have prevented the party from taking necessary decisions.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court considered both the factual aspects of the case (the events leading to the dispute, the requisition, and the meetings) and the legal aspects (interpretation of the party byelaws and principles of interim injunctions). The legal considerations, particularly the principles of non-interference in internal party matters, weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Single Judge granting interim relief.

Issue 2: Whether the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022 was validly convened.

Issue 3: Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favored granting an interim injunction.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s order, emphasizing that courts should generally not interfere in the internal affairs of political parties. The Court found that the Single Judge’s order was based on flawed reasoning, misinterpreting the party byelaws and failing to consider the realities of the situation. The Court also noted that the General Council is the supreme body of the party and that the meeting held on 11.07.2022 was a result of a valid requisition by a majority of its members.

The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the 11.07.2022 meeting was illegal due to lack of proper notice, stating that the 15-day notice requirement applied only to regular meetings and not to special meetings requisitioned by members. The Court also noted that the appellants were aware of the meeting date as it was announced in the 23.06.2022 meeting. Moreover, the Court held that the balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction, as it would perpetuate the functional deadlock within the party. The Court also rejected the argument that the expulsion of OPS and his supporters caused irreparable injury, stating that the party had the right to take disciplinary action against its members.