AIADMK’s expelled chief O. Panneerselvam on Thursday argued {that a} single judge of the Madras High Court had “misapplied” the test of balance of convenience while refusing to interfere with his expulsion regardless of discovering a prima facie case of infraction of the occasion’s bylaws in having expelled him with out issuing a present trigger discover of seven days.
Appearing before the third Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Mohammed Shaffiq, Senior Counsel P.S. Raman puzzled how the only judge may have decided that the balance of convenience was in favour of the occasion simply because it feared that the inclusion of Mr. Panneerselvam and three of his supporters, who too had been expelled, can be detrimental to its pursuits.
“Can the presence of four members cause damage to a party of 1.5 crore members?” the counsel requested. He stated, however, grave prejudice had been induced to the expelled members for the reason that single judge didn’t grant an interim injunction restraining the occasion from implementing a particular decision handed throughout its normal council assembly on July 11, 2022, for expelling them with out a discover.
Mr. Raman stated, while contemplating balance of convenience, the only judge will need to have assessed the gravity of denial of a chance to be a component of one of the biggest political events in south India. He stated immense harm had already been induced to Mr. Panneerselvam as a result of the occasion had performed the overall secretary election after expelling him although he may have been a attainable contender. “The appellant joined the party in 1977 and has risen from the rank and file. The party had an outstanding amount of ₹2.5 crore when he became its treasurer in 2007 but by the time his tenure came to an end in 2016, it had fixed deposits to the tune of ₹250 crore in the very same bank. He had been Chief Minister three times and former party supremo Jayalalithaa herself chose him for the post,” the senior counsel stated.
Claiming he had loved the arrogance of not solely Jayalalithaa but additionally the first members of the occasion, the senior counsel stated, now the appellant had been pushed to a political oblivion. “I have never come across any other case where a court says you have made out a prima facie case but balance of convenience is not in your favour and, therefore, relief cannot be granted. I stand before Your Lordships completely helpless,” Mr. Raman added.
Senior counsel Guru Krishnakumar, additionally representing Mr. Panneerselvam, assailed the only judge’s order over his refusal to interfere with 4 different resolutions handed by the overall council with respect to abolition of the posts of coordinator and joint coordinator and revival of the put up of normal secretary. He stated the judge had “completely misconstrued” some of the submissions made on behalf of the expelled leaders.
“The learned single judge, with great respect, has abdicated from the primary responsibility of adjudicating on the rival contentions. We had argued that the amendments made to the party bylaws through the four resolutions was in violation of the basic structure. Was it not incumbent upon the learned single judge to return a finding on it, however, prima facie it might be? He has not done that,” the senior counsel complained.
Since the counsel couldn’t full his arguments by the tip of the day, the Division Bench determined to proceed the listening to on Friday.
