Madras High Court Rejects PMK Founder Ramadoss' Plea Against Interim Order Refusing To Freeze “Mango” Symbol For Upcoming Elections

Justice TV Thamilselvi, on Friday (10th April), dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Ramadoss. The court noted that the relief sought had the nature of interfering with the election process and once the elections are notified, the courts could not pass such orders.

"However, as discussed above, though the civil court is competent to adjudicate the rival claims between the parties, the specific relief sought in the present application is not legally permissible. Once the election process has commenced, any order passed by the court which may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing, or protracting the election proceedings cannot be granted. The invocation of judicial remedies in such matters must be postponed until the completion of the election process. Further, the directions sought against the first respondent are also not sustainable," the court said.

Ramodass had first approached the High Court seeking Mango symbol. But the plea was dismissed and he was relegated to civil court.

 denied interim relief, he again moved the Hc in revision jurisdiction

As the civil court also denied interim relief on March 26 and dismissed two applications filed by Ramadoss in a civil suit in connection with the party leadership, he approached the High Court in revision.

In one application before the civil court, Ramadoss had sought to quash an earlier communication sent by ECI to Anbumani informing that the party has been allotted “Mango” symbol for the upcoming 2026 elections and to issue a fresh communication to Ramadoss' address. In the second application, Ramadoss sought directions to the ECI to freeze the party's "Mango" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections in view of the pending disputes regarding the party's President position.

Dismissing these petitions, the civil court had observed that the election process had already commenced in the State, schedule for polling had been fixed and in certain constituencies, the stage of scrutiny had also been completed. The court noted that once the process of election had begun, the courts should exercise extreme circumspection and refrain from passing orders which may interfere, interrupt, or stall the electoral process.

The court had also noted that a temporary injunction, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 could be granted only when there exists a prima facie case, when there is a balance of convenience and when there was a likelihood of irreparable injury.

The court noted that Ramadoss' entire claim was based on the assertion that the founder has assumed office of the President of the Party by virtue of resolutions allegedly passed by certain committees, including Special Administrative Committee. However, the court noted that the very existence of the authority was disputed by the Ramadoss faction and it was argued that the bye laws of the party does not recognise any such body. The court noted that such rival claims and disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated at interlocutory stage.

Thus, noting that there was no prima facie case, the court had dismissed the two applications. Ramadoss had approached the High Court against the dismissal of the applications.

Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v Election Commission of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 159

Case No: CRP 2197 of 2026