The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has contended that the appointment of V.K. Sasikala [who is now lodged at the Central Jail, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru] as [interim] general secretary of the AIADMK has been made in consonance with the party’s rules and regulations.
In its response to the Election Commission’s notice of February 17, the party is said to have explained to the panel that it was the general council of the party that took the decision [on December 29, 2016] of making Sasikala the general secretary, pending the filling of the post as per Rule 20 (ii), which, among others, states that “the general secretary shall be elected by primary members” of the party. Accordingly, a resolution was unanimously passed.
Again, as per the Rule 19 (viii), the decision of the general council “is final and binding on all the members of the party.” Citing this proviso, the general council was empowered, through another resolution, to take the decision of filling the post of general secretary, according to a source.
The Election Commission had issued the notice in response to petitions filed by V. Maitreyan, Member of Parliament and 11 other MPs belonging to the O. Panneerselvam faction of the AIADMK.
Signed by the party deputy general secretary, T.T.V. Dinakaran, the reply, which cited the Akhilesh Yadav v/s Mulayam Singh case concerning the Samajwadi Party, is also learnt to have contended that the Election Commission could not go into internal affairs of the AIADMK. The reply added that petitioners were also a party to the decision of the general council.
PIL dismissed
The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed as withdrawn a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition assailing the election of V.K. Sasikala as the ‘interim’ general secretary of AIADMK.
The petitioner, former AIADMK MP K.C. Palaniswamy, prayed the court to direct the Election Commission to consider his request to appoint an independent officer to conduct the election for the post of general secretary.
When the plea came up for hearing, the First Bench of acting Chief Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Justice R. Mahadevan asked how such a relief can be sought through a PIL, since it is an intra-party issue.
As the Bench decided to dismiss the plea, the petitioner requested the court to permit him to withdraw it.
