Justice Venkatesh went on to observe: “It is purely a private dispute within the party and between the founder and the first respondent… 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

Madras High Court-initiated mediation fails as PMK founder Ramadoss refuses to talk to his son Anbumani
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismisses a writ petition filed in the name of PMK, represented by its general secretary Murali Sankar, to restrain Anbumani from convening a general body meeting in Mamallapuram

Efforts taken by the Madras High Court on Friday (August 8, 2025) to mediate a truce between Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder S. Ramadoss and his son Anbumani Ramadoss failed with the former refusing to talk with the latter despite best efforts taken by the court.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh had asked the father and son to meet him in his chambers, after court hours, to ascertain if there was any possibility of them patching up. While Mr. Anbumani came in person, his father appeared through video call due to health concerns.

J

The judge had attempted mediation when a writ petition filed in the name of Pattali Makkal Katchi, represented by its general secretary Murali Sankar, was listed before him with a plea to restrain Mr. Anbumani from conducting a general body meeting in Mamallapuram on Saturday (August 9, 2025).

“Considering the fact that the founder of the party and the first respondent are father and son and they have worked together for a long time for the welfare of the party and people at large, this court thought it fit to attempt a mediation between them,” the judge said.

However, after the mediation failed due to the reluctance of the father to talk with his son, the judge heard the writ petition on merits and dismissed it stating that a dispute between two individuals related to party affairs could be decided only by way of a civil suit and not by filing a writ petition.

The judge agreed with senior counsel N.L. Rajah, assisted by K. Balu, that the writ petition was not maintainable at all. He also recorded the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor R. Muniyapparaj that the police consent was not required for the closed door general body meeting scheduled on August 9, 2025.

After hearing them, the judge wrote: “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 first 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 first respondent.”

Justice Venkatesh went on to observe: “It is purely a private dispute within the party and between the founder and the first respondent… 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.”

He also stated that “a private dispute between the father and the son can never be dealt with in a writ petition. A writ petition is normally not maintainable as against a private person in the absence of a public duty componen”.