O. Panneerselvam complains about the AIADMK general council meeting to the Election Commission

O. Panneerselvam complains about the AIADMK general council meeting to the Election Commission

O. Panneerselvam, the AIADMK coordinator, protested to the Election Commission on Monday about how his party’s general council (GC) meeting on June 23 and the meeting of the headquarters’ office-bearers on June 27 were conducted.

Mr. Panneerselvam, who is at odds with party coordinator Edappadi K. Palaniswami over the proposal to replace the “dual leadership” in the party with “single leadership,” provided an account of the circumstances leading up to the general council meeting in a nine-page representation addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner. He did not, however, describe how the meeting was conducted.

He argued that despite the fact that he and the co-coordinator [Mr. Palaniswami] had approved the draught of the 23 resolutions to be adopted by the GC and that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court had prohibited the general council from adopting any motion other than the aforementioned 23, a motion regarding the election of the party’s praesidium chairman [Tamilmagan Hussain] had been adopted after being proposed by the co-coor The in issue resolution “clearly violated” the court’s mandate. The coordinator, Mr. Panneerselvam, had not been informed of it, and the proposal had received “no approval.”


O. Panneerselvam criticises move to curb powers of Cooperative Societies'  chairpersons - The Hindu

Mr. Panneerselvam noted that the first of the 23 resolutions dealt with the Council’s approval for the election of the coordinator and co-coordinator, as well as the other positions in the party, and claimed that, in contrast to custom, members of the General Council were not given copies of the resolutions as approved by him and Mr. Palaniswami.

Mr. Panneerselvam was given a single copy of a booklet containing the 23 resolutions. After reading, I saw that resolution number one was a “totally new and changed” resolve. Additionally, the members rejected the 23 resolutions when former Law Minister C.Ve. Shanmugam advocated for their rejection “without any thorough deliberation within the General Council.”

Additionally, he said that since freshly elected office holders had attended the meeting for the first time, it would be “illegal” for the GC to not ratify the election of the coordinator and co-coordinator. Additionally, he objected to Mr. Hussain publicising the next GC’s date (July 11), saying that this was done “without permission and against the bylaws.” He thought back to how he and his coworkers had opposed the news. As the party treasurer, he said, he was prohibited from presenting the statement of accounts before the GC meeting.

Additionally, Mr. Panneerselvam expressed his displeasure with the meeting that had taken place at the party headquarters earlier in the day, labelling it “illegal and unlawful.” Neither the coordinator nor the co-coordinator, according to him, “convened the meeting or authorised any decision” that would be made there.


Cinema News


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: