Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Stays Rotary International Director’s Assumption of Office: Chennai – In a significant development, the Madras High Court has issued an interim order restraining M. Muruganandam from taking charge as the Rotary International Director for Zone 5 (covering Rotary clubs in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka) for the upcoming 2025–2027 term. The injunction, passed on June 26 by Justice K. Kumaresh Babu, stems from allegations of widespread electoral malpractices during the selection process.
The plea was filed by the Rotary Club of Sivagiri, the Rotary Club of Erode Central, and E.K. Sagadhevan, who was reportedly a contender for the director position. The plaintiffs have accused Muruganandam of violating established electoral norms as well as the stringent Rotary Code of Policies and Bylaws, specifically prohibiting unauthorized campaigning, coercion, and bribery.
Muruganandam had previously denied these allegations, and a Rotary committee had, prior to the High Court’s intervention, dismissed the complaints against him as “devoid of merit.” This decision prompted the aggrieved parties to seek judicial intervention.
Justice K Kumaresh Babu of Madras High Court.
However, the Madras High Court critically assessed the Rotary committee’s report, finding it to be “bereft of any finding of facts, conclusions and recommendations.” This lack of substantiation in the internal review process appears to have been a pivotal factor in the Court’s decision to grant interim relief.
Consequently, Muruganandam, who was slated to assume the prestigious international role on July 1, will now be prevented from doing so for a period of four weeks, as per the Court’s interim order. The Court has also stipulated that the plaintiffs must comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the injunction to operate.
The plaintiffs’ petition before the Court explicitly detailed how the Zone 5 director election process was allegedly “tainted by serious electoral malpractices.” They claimed that Muruganandam violated Rotary International rules that strictly “prohibit Rotarians from campaigning, canvassing, or electioneering for an elected position in Rotary International.” This includes restrictions on the circulation of brochures, literature, or letters by a candidate or anyone on their behalf.
Crucially, the plaintiffs highlighted that despite submitting formal complaints, affidavits, and supporting documentary evidence to Rotary International, its Board, and its Council on Legislation (Corporate Governance), these grievances were dismissed “without conducting a proper inquiry.” This perceived lack of due process within Rotary’s internal mechanisms ultimately led them to the Madras High Court.
The Court has now sought responses from several key entities, including Rotary International (USA), the Rotary International South Asia Office, M. Muruganandam, the Rotary International Board of Directors, and its Council on Legislation (Corporate Governance). The matter has been adjourned for four weeks, at which point the Court will likely review the responses and consider further action.
Senior Advocate P.M. Subramanian and Advocate D. Prasanna appeared for the plaintiffs, with their plea filed through Advocate N. Darani. The interim injunction marks a significant legal pause in the leadership transition within Rotary International’s Zone 5, underscoring the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing internal organizational elections when allegations of impropriety are raised and internal redressal mechanisms are deemed insufficient.
