Plea in High Court against, EPS, others for contempt

An AIADMK worker, P Shanmugam of Tiruppur district in Tamil Nadu, has moved the Madras High Court, seeking action against party's then Joint Co-ordinator K Palaniswami and senior leaders and general council (GC) members including C V Shanmugam and Presidium chairman Tamil Magan Hussain for allegedly violating the June 23 orders of the court over the GC meet.

The interim prayers of the petitioner include staying the appointment of Hussain as the permanent Presidium Chairman at the general council meeting, which was held on June 23 and to restrain him from acting in that capacity.

The other is to restrain the respondents from conducting the so called "general council' meeting, 'illegally' announced to be held on July 11 for the implementation of any decision in view of not being without the express joint authorisation of both the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator, O Panneerselvam and Palaniswami, respectively.

The petition prayed the court to pass orders including imprisonment for their audacity in challenging the majesty of the law and to ensure compliance with its orders in future. Among the respondents against whom the petitioner wanted action included Panneerselvam.

According to petitioner, a special bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and Sundar Mohan in the wee hours of June 23 had permitted the coordinator and joint coordinator to convene the general council meeting at 10 a.m. the same day. It also permitted the council to discuss and take any decision as per the Rules and Bye-Laws with regard to the 23 items mentioned in the draft resolution and made it clear that the respondents shall not take any decision other than the 23 items. The members of the council are at liberty to discuss any other matter, but, no decision should be taken with regard to the same, the judges had said.

The court had then also rejected the contention of the senior counsel for Palaniswami that it was not the practice of the party to issue any agenda prior to the convening the council meeting and the subjects would be taken up as and when the members of the council raise the same. The judges had made it clear that the draft resolution containing 23 items that were to be discussed and decided in the council, had been approved by the Panneerselvam on June 22.

Therefore, by the approval given by the coordinator it is clear that the subjects that are to be discussed and decided in the council Meeting requires his approval.

However, to the shock and dismay of the petitioner, EPS had committed multiple actions that shall clearly amount to both willful breach and disobedience of the order passed by the judges. While even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience, the action of all the respondents brazenly reveals contumacious disobedience of the Court's order. Hussain was appointed as the permanent Presidium chairman at the council meeting, all the 23 agenda items were thrown out, posts of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator were abolished and a decision was taken to hold the next general council meeting on July 11. There was also a demand for unitary leadership under EPS.

All this amounted to willful violation of the June 23 interim orders of the bench, attracting punishment under the Contempt of Court Act, petitioner said and sought to punish them for the same.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)