Madras HC Vacates Stay On ECI Proceedings In Connection With AIADMK Party Leadership, Asks ECI To Enquire As Per Election Symbols Order

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan asked the ECI to inquire into the issue within the parameters of its powers under Para 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The bench asked the ECI to first satisfy itself about the existence of a party dispute, its jurisdiction and then proceed with the inquiry.

“The ECI should first satisfy itself that there is a jurisdiction and a dispute in terms of Paragraph 15 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. The ECI shall conduct the enquiry as per the parameters of the Order and proceed with the enquiry only after satisfying itself about the jurisdiction,” the bench said.

As per Para 15 of the Election Symbols Order, when the commission is satisfied upon information that there are rival sections or groups of a recognized political party each of whom claims to be that party, the Commission may, based on available facts and circumstances and after hearing such r4epresenttaion of the sections or groups, decide that one such rival section or group or nin of such rival sections or groups is the recognized political party and the decision of the Commission shall be binding on the rival sections or groups.

On January 9^th, the court had stayed the ECI proceedings on a plea by AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi Palaniswami seeking to forbear the ECI from conducting quasi-judicial proceedings into the party's leadership dispute based on the representations made by Mr. Ravindranath, Mr Palanisamy, Mur. Pugazhendi, B Ramkumar Adityan, P Gandhi and MG Ramachandran.

Following this, petitions were filed by expelled AIADMK party members P Ravindranath, Va Pugazhendi, and MG Ramachandiran to vacate the stay. The court today, allowed the petitions and also dismissed the stay petitions originally filed.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate PB Suresh (appearing for MG Ramachandiran) submitted that the petitioners could not challenge the jurisdiction of the ECI after having subjected themselves to the same. It was argued that the ECI had suo motu powers or could initiate an action based on complaints to decide upon the party leadership. It was submitted that the ECI had the authority to say which fraction represented the party or could even say none of the fractions represented the party.

Questioning the ECI's quasi-judicial enquiry, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan, on behalf of AIADM argued that the ECI could intervene in the intra-party affairs only when there was a rift or rival sections in the party which was not the case here. He pointed out that Edappadi was appointed General Secretary as per party mandate as the party members favoured Edappadi. AIADMK also argued that the validity of amendments to bye-laws, expulsion of party members, etc were issued that had to be decided by the civil court and the ECI did not have powers to inquire into the same.

Case Title: Mr VA. Pugazhendi v. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 55

Case No: WMP 2933 of 2025 in WP 258 of 2025