Change judge in case against GC meet, says OPS

CHENNAI: AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam and general council (GC) member P Vairamuthu have sought the court to spare Justice Krishnan Ramasamy from hearing the case they have filed against the July 11 GC meeting saying the latter handles the matter with a pre-concluded approach. The case was listed for hearing before the judge on Thursday.

On behalf of Panneerselvam, senior advocate NGR Prasad, on Wednesday, made a mention before Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari seeking to change the judge.Pointing out certain portions in the order made by Krishnan Ramasamy on interim applications seeking to stay the July 11 GC meeting, Prasad said the judge’s comments and observations reflected his pre-concluded approach and expressed anguish that he may not properly adjudicate the suit.

Moreover, the timing of delivery of the judgment—9 am on July 11, just a while before the commencement of the GC meeting—was also questioned and cited to be a ground to hand over the matter to another judge because it had deprived the petitioners the window to move quick appeals before a division bench. Eventually, Edappadi K Palaniswami was elected interim general secretary.

The Chief Justice said he would take a decision on the matter by going through the letters given to him by the petitioners and consulting the judge concerned. The HC is going to hear the matter since the Supreme Court reverted it when Panneerselvam approached the apex court.

Krishnan Ramasamy, in his July 11 order, rapped Panneerselvam by saying, “It is very unfortunate that a leader, in the capacity of coordinator, has time and again rushed to this court, seeking interference, instead of approaching the GC and convincing one and all by introducing his ideas and plans towards the welfare of the party members and development of the party so as to gain the confidence of the members to act in his favour.”

Rejecting the prayer, he further said, “The authority to frame, amend, vary and rescind the bylaws of the party, undoubtedly, vests with the GC and in the absence of any statutory status attached to such bylaws and when the majority plays a vital role in the decision-making process, this court cannot interfere with the internal affairs of the party.”