The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court order upholding the expulsion of O Panneerselvam and three other leaders from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in July 2022. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, hearing their appeals against the August 2023 High Court order, refused to interfere in the matter and said it expected that the "trial in the pending civil suit would be decided expeditiously". "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment as granting injunction may have its own unpalatable consequences. However, we deem it appropriate to observe that the observations made in the impugned judgment, including the order passed by the single judge, would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Dismissal of SLP should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case," said the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for Panneerselvam, told the court that the post of general secretary was removed in the honour of former party general secretary J Jayalalithaa after her death, and two posts of "coordinator" and "joint coordinator" were created. "She (Jayalalithaa) was declared the eternal general secretary of the party, and two posts equal to this post were created, namely coordinator and joint coordinator. Panneerselvam was the joint coordinator.," Venugopal submitted. However, Justice Khanna said that "this was not done by amending the party's constitution", adding that the amendment had to be made by the general council and not the executive council. In February 2023, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court order allowing Edappadi Palaniswamy to continue as the party's interim general secretary. Venugopal said that there was "no provision for expelling the joint coordinator", and that "it was a political death for Panneerselvam". On this, Justice Khanna said "why? He can split the party. That happens". Venugopal urged the court to issue a notice, saying, "Your lordships will have to issue a notice in a matter like this, when so much injustice is being done on the face of it." Justice Khanna, however, did not agree. "By giving the relief, you are claiming we are virtually decreeing the suit. To us, it does appear that there is a split in the party which will work itself out. By doing this we will be creating more problems. So let things work out.," said Justice Khanna. Venugopal pointed out that the suit would take five years to be decided, wondering if the court wanted the issue to be in limbo for that long. "We know what we are doing," said Justice Khanna. The senior counsel urged the court to at least direct the trial court to decide the civil suit expeditiously. Following this, the bench said in its order, "We expect that the trial in the civil suit would proceed expeditiously, and parties will not take adjournments."
