Express News Service
NEW DELHI: AIADMK interim general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) told the Supreme Court (SC) that an “overwhelming majority” of the party functionaries were against O Panneerselvam (OPS).Contending that the plea filed by OPS was “frivolous in nature”, EPS said: “Requisition for (a) special meeting on July 11, 2022, to take decisions on single leadership was made by 2,190 out of 2,665 members of the General Council (GC), which amounts to 82% of the GC members.
“This was followed up with the agenda signed by 2,432 GC members (250 additional GC members had given the agenda). On July 11, 2022, the GC (meeting) was attended by 2,460 members. They unanimously passed resolutions removing O Panneerselvam as co-ordinator and from the party’s primary membership.”
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by OPS challenging the Madras High Court’s September 2 verdict that restored EPS as the AIADMK’s single leader. On September 30, EPS assured SC that there would be no election to the post of general secretary till the matter was heard by the top court.
Stating that the party’s GC was its supreme body and its decisions were binding on all party members, the affidavit said the present action of OPS, which was against the decision of the GC, made it clear that he was not entitled to be a member. “The claim of Mr O Panneerselvam that the leaders in the party were above the GC was contradictory to the rules and regulations of the party.”
An executive council meeting, convened on December 1, 2021, passed a resolution to amend the bylaws of the party with regard to coordinator and joint coordinator posts, which was to be placed for approval in the subsequent GC meeting. But the resolution was not approved at the GC meeting on June 23, 2022. This resulted in the lapse of the elections, which happened pursuant to the amendments, to the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator. The differences between EPS and OPS in this regards resulted in a “functional deadlock” in the party.
“There was an inability on the part of the co-ordinator and joint co-ordinator to function jointly. Under the rules and regulations, the co-ordinator and the joint co-ordinator can do any function only together,” the affidavit said.
NEW DELHI: AIADMK interim general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) told the Supreme Court (SC) that an “overwhelming majority” of the party functionaries were against O Panneerselvam (OPS).Contending that the plea filed by OPS was “frivolous in nature”, EPS said: “Requisition for (a) special meeting on July 11, 2022, to take decisions on single leadership was made by 2,190 out of 2,665 members of the General Council (GC), which amounts to 82% of the GC members.
“This was followed up with the agenda signed by 2,432 GC members (250 additional GC members had given the agenda). On July 11, 2022, the GC (meeting) was attended by 2,460 members. They unanimously passed resolutions removing O Panneerselvam as co-ordinator and from the party’s primary membership.”
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by OPS challenging the Madras High Court’s September 2 verdict that restored EPS as the AIADMK’s single leader. On September 30, EPS assured SC that there would be no election to the post of general secretary till the matter was heard by the top court.
Stating that the party’s GC was its supreme body and its decisions were binding on all party members, the affidavit said the present action of OPS, which was against the decision of the GC, made it clear that he was not entitled to be a member. “The claim of Mr O Panneerselvam that the leaders in the party were above the GC was contradictory to the rules and regulations of the party.”
An executive council meeting, convened on December 1, 2021, passed a resolution to amend the bylaws of the party with regard to coordinator and joint coordinator posts, which was to be placed for approval in the subsequent GC meeting. But the resolution was not approved at the GC meeting on June 23, 2022. This resulted in the lapse of the elections, which happened pursuant to the amendments, to the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator. The differences between EPS and OPS in this regards resulted in a “functional deadlock” in the party.
“There was an inability on the part of the co-ordinator and joint co-ordinator to function jointly. Under the rules and regulations, the co-ordinator and the joint co-ordinator can do any function only together,” the affidavit said.