The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a plea of former AIADMK leader TTV Dhinakaran and V K Sasikala challenging a Delhi High Court order granting the 'two leaves' symbol to a faction led by Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami.
The bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, sought ECI's reply by March 25.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Dhinakaran faction, said that EC is not giving them a common symbol, adding that the apex court has directed to allot 'pressure cooker' as a common symbol to the party.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatagi, appearing for the Palaniswami led faction, said that, "Dhinakaran has already floated a new party".
On February 28, the high court had dismissed the pleas of Dhinakaran and VK Sasikala challenging the Election Commission's order granting the 'AIADMK' name and the 'two leaves' symbol to the faction led by the Tamil Nadu chief minister, saying the figures showed the Palaniswami-led group "enjoyed a clear majority".
It had upheld the EC's decision of November 23, 2017, saying none of the grounds of challenge raised by the Dhinakaran-Sasikala faction were made out and there was "no infirmity" in the poll panel's order allotting the party name and symbol to the group led by Palaniswami and his deputy O Panneerselvam.
After the high court order was pronounced, Dhinakaran and Sasikala had urged the court to direct the EC not to allot the 'pressure cooker' symbol to any one during the next 15 days so that they have time to move the apex court and seek an appropriate relief from there.
The EC, thereafter, had agreed not to allot the symbol to any one for next 15 days in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Dhinakaran had floated the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) after he and Sasikala were expelled from the Palaniswami-led AIADMK. The symbol issue has been lingering since April 2017 and the verdict came as a shot in the arm for the Palanisami-led AIADMK ahead of the Lok Sabha polls.
The Dhinakaran-Sasikala faction had contended before the court that the EC, while trying to ascertain who enjoyed the majority support, ought to have considered the views of the primary members in the party as well and not just its organisational and legislative wings.