Kuala Lumpur – MIC’s Central Working Committee member and lawyer R.Nadarajan (pic), in a press statement issued on behalf of MIC Legal Committee, has urged certain parties not to misinterpret the Court of Appeal Judgement recorded on the 10th of January 2017, in respect of the suit brought by K.Ramalingam and 7 others against the Registrar of Societies (RoS).
The following is th full text of the press statement:
“The recent decision of the Court of Appeal (CA) with regards to the appeal by A.K. Ramalingam and 7 others against the dismissal of their case by the Kuala Lumpur High Court has caused some confusion amongst the general public.
Putting it in plain terms, it means that the CA has ordered for a full trial of the case to be heard before another High Court Judge and did not go into the merits of the case.
Certain parties have incorrectly interpreted the decision of the CA and have gone to the extent of speculating that the directives of the Registrar of Societies (ROS) to conduct a re-election and the subsequent re-election conducted as per the directives are null and void.
Such an interpretation is most certainly without any sense of merit and quite clearly has been made to give a political twist to the decision.
Without any doubt, Datuk Seri Dr. S. Subramaniam is the lawfully elected president of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) together with all other officials who were also lawfully elected in the re-election in 2015. It is noteworthy that the entire hierarchy of MIC including the branches, divisions, the Youth, Women, Putera and Puteri sections went through the re-election process as per the directives of ROS and in compliance with the party’s constitution. The MIC re-election has been accepted and endorsed by ROS and the party’s leadership has been lawfully constituted.
Further, it must be noted that the decision of the CA itself is open to appeal and the Respondents’ have legal recourse to file for such an appeal against the decision if they obtain leave from the Federal Court.
In the event that the Respondents choose not to appeal, they could proceed with their case in the High Court and await its decision after full trial. The party aggrieved by the decision of the High Court then has the right to appeal. Similarly, the party aggrieved by the decision of the CA may choose to appeal to the Federal Court if leave for such an appeal is granted. The entire process will therefore require much time before all legal avenues are eventually exhausted.
Any attempt to politicise the matter by misinterpreting the CA’s decision is tantamount to questioning the status quo of the party and its leadership.
It is our considered opinion that the status quo of this matter remains that the Party President and the Party Leadership have been legally elected and validly constituted.”
