Unfortunate Ego Clash Between Father And Son: Madras High Court Dismisses PMK Party's Plea Against Meeting Convened By Anbumani Ramadoss

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that the entire issue was an unfortunate ego clash between Dr. S. Ramadoss, the party's founder and his son Anbumani Ramadoss. Noting that a writ petition was not maintainable in case of private dispute, the court was not inclined to order the relief.

“The entire dispute in the case in hand revolves around an unfortunate ego clash between the father and son. The father is the founder of Party and the 1st respondent is his son. For various reasons, they are not able to see eye to eye and as a result, there is division within the Party with some supporting the founder and others supporting the 1st respondent,” the court said.

The court added that the argument of whether the party's bye-laws had been violated by calling the meeting could not be gone into by the High Court in writ proceedings, and at best, it could only be a subject of civil proceedings.

“It is purely a private dispute within the Party as between the founder and the 1st respondent. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to deal with all the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, touching upon the by-laws. At the best, it can only be a subject matter of civil proceedings where the so-called illegality in convening the General Body Meeting and electing the President can be questioned,” the court said.

The petitioner party had argued that Ramadoss appointed Anbumani as the party President for a period of three years, which expired on May 28, 2025. It was argued that the founder had to convene the general body to take steps to appoint a new president of the party. It was thus argued that the general body meeting convened by Anbumani, who was no longer the party President, was against the party bye-laws.

Considering that the founder and the former president were father and son, the Judge said that he wanted to first talk to both parties in his chamber to arrive at an amicable solution. However, noting that the founder was not ready to talk to the first respondent, who was his own son. The court then heard the matter on merits.

The Additional Public Prosecutor informed the bench that the proposed meeting was a closed-door one and did not require any permission from the police. The state further assured that of any law and order problem arose, the police would intervene and bring the situation to normalcy.

Anbumani challenged the very maintainability of the plea and argued that the private dispute between the father and son could not be decided in the writ petition. He also justified the meeting by placing reliance on some bye-laws of the party.

Looking into the issues raised, the court noted that the matter did not have even a semblance of public function/duty. The court also noted that no police protection was needed for the closed door meeting and if at all any law and order problem was created, the police would handle the same and take action against the concerned persons. Thus, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Appellants: Dr. K. Arul

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. N. L. Rajah Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Balu, Mr. E. Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader, Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. V. Meganathan Government Advocate

Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi v. Dr. R. Anbumani and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 271

Case No: WP No. 30170 of 2025