Chennai: PMK founder S Ramadoss has moved Madras high court challenging a communication issued by Election Commission of India (ECI) allotting the ‘mango’ symbol to his son Anbumani’s faction of the party.He wanted the court to direct ECI to issue a fresh communication allotting the symbol to PMK under his leadership, recognising him as president for the purpose of contesting the upcoming Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan is likely to hear the petition on Feb 2.According to the party represented by Ramadoss, Anbumani was appointed president of the party for a fixed term of three years, from May 28, 2022, to May 2025, through a general body meeting. This appointment was duly communicated to the ECI. The petitioner asserted that the tenure was limited to three years, as per the party’s constitution, and there was no provision for extension beyond this period.After the expiry of Anbumani’s tenure, certain unauthorised and forged documents were created and submitted to the ECI, the petitioner said. These documents allegedly misrepresented that a general body meeting was held on Aug 31, 2023, and that the tenure of office-bearers headed by Anbumani was extended up to Feb 23, 2026, and later Aug 1, 2026, the petitioner said. The petitioner alleged that no valid general body meeting was held on the stated dates. The party constitution does not permit an extension of tenure for 36 days or any interim period. The ECI was allegedly misled into issuing communications based on these documents.The petitioner contended that ECI issued a communication dated July 30, 2025, allotting ‘mango’ to PMK for Bihar 2025, Tamil Nadu 2026, and Puducherry 2026 elections. However, this communication was sent to an incorrect address to Anbumani, rather than to the present office address of Ramadoss at No 63, Nattu Muthu Naickan Street, Vanniya Teynampet, Chennai. “This incorrect addressing caused confusion regarding party leadership and symbol allotment, and the communication dated July 30, 2025, was therefore illegal and arbitrary,” the petitioner said.
