The Madras High Court on Wednesday (February 12, 2025) vacated the stay granted by it on January 9 against all further proceedings pending before the Election Commission of India (ECI) in connection with individual representations made by expelled All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) members P. Ravindranath, K.C. Palanisamy, Va Pugazhendi, and three others regarding intra-party affairs.
Third Division Bench of Justices R Subramanian and G. Arul Murugan, however, ordered that the ECI should consider the representations strictly within the parameters of paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order of 1968. They also said, the ECI must first satisfy itself that there existed a dispute in terms of paragraph 15, and only after that could it proceed further.
The judges made it clear that the hearing of the parties concerned by the ECI, at the initial stage, must be confined only to satisfy itself regarding the existence of a dispute, which could be decided in terms of paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order. Only after conducting such a preliminary inquiry, the commission must arrive at a conclusion as to whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed further.
Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols Order deals with the power of the ECI to decide which of a splinter group or rival section of a political party could be recognised as the one representing the party. The legal provision states that if the Commission was satisfied, on information in its possession, that there were rival factions in a political party, then it could conduct an inquiry and rule which of those rival factions would be entitled to represent the party.
The Division Bench passed the orders on vacate stay applications filed by AIADMK expelled members P. Ravindranath, a former Member of Parliament and son of former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam, Va. Pugazhendi, and M.G. Ramachandiran of Ranipet.
Background of the case
Initially, it was an individual named S. Surya Moorthi who had submitted a representation to the ECI on February 12, 2024 (just before the Lok Sabha elections held that year), for freezing AIADMK’s ‘two leaves’ election symbol due to pending civil suits regarding the party leadership dispute. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in the High Court on February 14, 2024, seeking a direction to the ECI to consider his representation.
The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench comprising Justices Subramanian and C. Kumarappan on December 4, 2024, after recording the submission made by the counsel for the ECI that it would dispose of the representation within four weeks. Thereafter, the ECI began issuing notices to the AIADMK on six other representations that had been made by different individuals who had been expelled from the party.
The AIADMK rushed to the court early this year challenging all six of those notices and an obtained the interim stay against the ECI. Those representations had been made by Mr. Ravindranath, Mr. Palanisamy, Mr. Pugazhendi, B. Ramkumar Adityan of Thoothukudi, P. Gandhi of Madurai, and Mr. Ramachandiran of Ranipet. In its six writ petitions, the party questioned the jurisdiction of the ECI to interfere in intra-party issues.
During the course of hearing of the batch of writ petitions filed by AIADMK, Justice Subramanian had criticised the ECI for giving an impression that it was his Bench that had directed it to consider the representation made by Mr. Surya Moorthy. The judge made it clear that the court had not issued any such direction and that it had only recorded the submission made on behalf of the ECI to consider the representation.
While granting the interim stay on January 9, the senior judge had also wondered how the ECI could venture upon to decide intra-party issues especially when they were a subject matter of multiple civil suits pending before the High Court. He observed that the ECI appeared to have assumed jurisdiction to do so on the strength of the order passed by his Bench in Surya Moorthi’s case, though that order does not confer any such jurisdiction.
It was thereafter the three applications were filed to vacate the stay. When the Bench heard those applications last week, ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopal told the court that the Commission was yet to decide whether it had any jurisdiction to consider the plea made by the individuals, who had submitted their representations, but the party rushed to the court with six writ petitions even before a decision could be taken on jurisdiction.
Published – February 12, 2025 11:27 am IST
