PMK Leadership Dispute: Madras High Court Dismisses Ramadoss' Pleas For Party Presidency, 'Mango' Symbol

The Madras High Court, on Friday (20th February), dismissed two writ petitions filed by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder Dr. Ramadoss seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to declare him as the party's President and to freeze the "Mango" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections till the party disputes are settled.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the parties to work out their remedies before the civil court. 

Ramadoss had filed the first writ petition seeking to quash an earlier communication sent by ECI to Anbumani informing that the party has been allotted “Mango” symbol for the upcoming 2026 elections. He also called upon the ECI to issue a fresh communication to Ramadoss's address. Ramadoss alleged that Anbumani had committed fraud on the ECI and created documents without any authority to mislead the ECI as if Anbumani continued to be the party president.

Ramadoss argued that Anbumani's tenure as the party president had ended, and there was no provision in the party's byelaws that allowed an extension of tenure without convening a general body meeting. He thus sought to recognise himself as the Party's president. The court had previously asked the ECI to respond to the plea.

In his second plea, Ramadoss sought directions to the ECI to freeze the party's "Mago" symbol for the upcoming assembly elections in view of the pending disputes regarding the party's President position.

When the matter came up for hearing, Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal, appearing for the ECI, submitted that the PMK party itself had lost recognition, as it had failed to secure the required number of seats in the previous elections. It was submitted that, after derecognition, the symbol no longer belonged to the party. 

It was also submitted that the question regarding which faction of the party should get the symbol had to be decided by the competent civil court, and the ECI did not have the power to decide the same. It was submitted that the Delhi High Court, while dealing with the party leadership dispute, had also noted that the ECI did not have the power to decide about the allotment of a symbol. 

On the other hand, Advocate V Arul, appearing for Ramadoss submitted that a civil suit was pending for declaring Ramadoss as the party president. He argued that the present plea was filed considering the fact that the elections were coming up and only the ECI had the power to freeze the symbols. To avoid any confusion, he urged the ECI to freeze the symbol and added that the party would be contesting the case before the civil court. 

It was also argued that Anbumani had committed fraud on the ECI by forging fraudulent documents and had taken away the party from his own father. He also informed the court that complaints had been raised with the Delhi poice regarding teh fraud committed by Anbumani. 

"Fraud was committed on the ECI. The ECI was cheated by creating a forged document, taking away the party from the father. We have raised a complaint with the Delhi Police.....This is a father who made his law graduate son into a Council Minister at the age of 35," Arul argued.

When the court wondered if the dispute between the father and son could be resolved through talks, the counsels informed the court that previously, a single judge himself had tried to talk to the parties, but no amicable settlement could be reached.

After hearing the counsels, the bench noted that, considering the decision of the Delhi High Court and the pending civil disputes, it could not pass any orders asking the ECI to freeze the "Mango" symbol. The court thus directed the parties to approach the civil court and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Arul

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Niranjan Rajagopal

Case Title: M/s. Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Election Commission of India and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 81

Case No: WP 6719 of 2026