‘Unfortunate Ego Clash’: Madras HC Declines to Intervene in PMK Father-Son Dispute
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) general secretary seeking to stop an upcoming general body meeting called by the party’s president, terming it a “private dispute” between father and son and noting the absence of any public law element.
The petitioner had requested the court to direct the Director General of Police (DGP) to prevent the meeting, alleging that the current president had convened it illegally after his tenure ended on May 28. He argued that this violated party by-laws and could create law-and-order problems.
The court observed that the issue arose from “an unfortunate ego clash” between the founder and the current president — a father-son duo who had worked together for decades — resulting in internal divisions within the PMK. Justice N Anand Venkatesh emphasised that the legality of the meeting under the party’s rules could only be decided through civil proceedings, not via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The PMK, founded in 1989 by Dr S Ramadoss, appointed his son as president on May 28, 2022, for a three-year term. With the term now expired, the petitioner said steps were underway to appoint a new president from May 29, with Dr Ramadoss nominated for the post pending formal approval.
During the hearing, the court attempted to mediate by directing both parties to appear — Dr Ramadoss through video conferencing due to ill health and the current president in person — but the founder declined to engage in dialogue with his son.
The petitioner’s counsel maintained that the meeting was unlawful, while the police’s counsel stated that no permission was needed for a closed-door political meeting and assured the court that any law-and-order concerns would be addressed. The president’s senior counsel argued that the petition was not maintainable as it concerned a purely internal party matter and the meeting complied with the by-laws.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in S Shobha v Muthoot Finance Ltd (2025), the High Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction applies mainly to state entities, statutory bodies, or private bodies performing public duties, and requires a public law element — which was absent in this case.
The court concluded that police approval was unnecessary for a private political meeting and any disturbances would be managed according to law. Finding no grounds for intervention, it dismissed the writ petition without costs and closed all connected miscellaneous petitions.
