Sasikala's appointment was illegal, say MPs
However, of a total 50 MPs of AIADMK, only 12 lawmakers turned up at the EC headquarters.
New Delhi: The AIADMK factional feud on Thursday spilled over to the capital with O. Paneerselvam camp approaching the Election Commission challenging the appointment of Sasikala as interim general secretary and her nephew T.T.K. Dinakaran as the deputy general secretary of the party.
However, of a total 50 MPs of AIADMK, only 12 lawmakers turned up at the EC headquarters. The delegation was led by Dr V. Maityeyan, who said that there is no provision of picking an interim general secretary in the party constitution and therefore Sasikala’s appointment was not valid.
He also underlined that all appointments made by her are also illegal, by virtue of her not being elected constitutionally, EC sources said adding the MPs gave a representation to the poll panel. The delegation met Chief Election Commissioner Nasim Zaidi and other top officials, and submitted a memorandum demanding that it decline approval to her elevation to the top party post.
In its 42-page petition, the delegation claimed Sasikala’s election was violative of the party constitution as she was chosen by the general council of the party and not the primary members. It said the general council was empowered to frame policies and programmes, and not elect someone as general secretary.
The representation also quoted clause 30 (V) of the party constitution to say that a person was required to be a primary member of the party for five years for being eligible for the post.
AIADMK is the largest party in the Lok Sabha after the BJP and the Congress. It has 37 MPs in the Lower House and 13 members in the Upper House.
The Supreme Court had on Tuesday convicted Sasikala in the more than a decade-old disproportionate assets case.
The court’s verdict put an end to her bid to become the CM. Upholding the trial court’s order, the SC set aside the High Court judgement which had acquitted her and former CM the late Jayalalithaa.
“Nevertheless, we reiterate that having regard to the facts, the charge framed against them by the trial court is restored,” the bench said.