Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. The respondents no.2 to 5 handed consolidated written submission wherein they reiterated their arguments and further submitted that the Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the amendment of the constitution of the party. The issue regarding the same is pending before the Madras High Court in CS 858/2017. In response to the applicability of the 'basic structure' doctrine, it was submitted that the rules and regulations of AIADMK cannot be termed as a constitution and could not be equated with the Constitution of India. It was also contended that there is an intrinsic contradiction between the position taken by the petitioner as the respondent no.6 has not been elected by the primary members, but by the General Council. In respect to the tests in Sadiq Ali (Supra), it was submitted that the Supreme Court has merely recorded the three tests, it had not approved the same. On the contrary, it had only accepted the majority test. In response to W.P.(C) 10733/2017, it was submitted that the affidavits were filed along with identification documents and were duly notarized. The petitioners in W.P.(C) 10733/2017 had also failed to approach any other authority regarding the threats, undue influence and forgery.