MP challenges move to make Sasikala general secretary

When the case came for hearing on Thursday, a bout of heated arguments ensued in the court and Justice K Kalyanasundaram posted the case to December 21, 2016 after directing Sasikala, AIADMK and Election Commission of India to file their counters. Senior counsel K M Vijayan appearing on behalf of Sasikala Pushpa contended that the party bylaw mandates that only a general body can elect a general secretary. But contrary to this, attempts are being made to hold the elections by convening the general council, which comprises only a small group of members. 

He further submitted that to contest for General Secretary one must have been a primary member of the party continuously for five years. But Sasikala was inducted as a primary member in March 2012 and hence fell short of the stipulation by six months. However, on noting that though this rule can be amended by passing a resolution in the General Body, the mandate that only a General Body can elect the General Secretary cannot be amended as there is a bar in the bylaw to make such modification, Vijayan stressed. He further argued that as per the Societies Registration Act, a minimum of 21 days’ notice have to be served on the members for attending the General Council whereas in this case no notice has been served. 

Till proper methodology is followed, election to the General Secretary should not be allowed and status quo must be maintained, he added. Senior Counsel B Kumar appearing on behalf of the AIADMK argued that the suit was not maintainable at the first place since the first plaintiff Sasikala Puspha has been expelled from the party on August 1, 2016 and thus has no locus standi to move this suit against AIADMK. 

He also noted that even as the claim of the second plaintiff, who is the husband of the Sasikala Pushpa, to be a primary member of the party needs to be verified, the Rule 5 of the party’s bylaw prohibits a member from approaching the court assailing the party’s decision. He further submitted that when a member approaches the court their membership automatically gets terminated and hence by his act of filing this suit the second plaintiff has lost his membership and consequently loses his locus standi as well. 

A status quo if granted would affect the interest of 1.5 crore members of the party, he added. However, Vijayan on noting that there are a lot of misconceptions in AIADMK’s argument, argued that though it’s claimed that Sasikala Pushpa has been expelled from the party so far no communication has come forth from the party in this regard and even the Rajya Sabha secretary has not been informed of such a decision. Till date she is attending the Rajya Sabha representing AIADMK, he said. As far as the second plaintiff is concerned, Vijayan submitted that it is his constitutional right to approach a court of law and such a right cannot be curtailed by a bylaw. The aspect of as to whether AIADMK falls under the Societies Act also emerged. 

While Vijayan claimed that AIADMK as an association has to be registered under Societies Act, AIADMK’S counsel Kumar submitted that it registered under the Representation of Peoples Act as a political party and hence the provisions of Societies Act would not apply.

The HC adjourned a PIL seeking to register a case against the managing director of Apollo Hospitals and senior AIAIDMK leader C Ponnaiyan, for allegedly forging the signature of former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa.  When the plea moved by social activist Traffic Ramaswamy came up before the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, his student Fathima appeared on his behalf. But the bench on observing that it cannot entertain her arguments, since the plea was moved as party-in-person by Ramaswamy, adjourned the case to January 9, 2017. He had submitted that on November 13, the former Minister Ponnaiyan had released a press report from Apollo Hospital in the name of Jayalalithaa without her signature. Subsequently, he reissued the same content with the signature of the late CM. He raised doubts about the validity of the signature.