Bringing uncertainty to the AIADMK’s iconic ‘Two Leaves’ symbol, the Election Commission of India on Wednesday submitted before Madras High Court that it would take a fresh look within four weeks on the issue of allotting the symbol to the candidates nominated by party general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS).

The EC’s submission, before a Division Bench of Justices R Subramanian and C Kumarappan, in a case filed by one S Surya Moorthi of Dindigul, makes it clear that the issue is not settled and the poll body is keeping it open. The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the AIADMK, had pleaded for a direction to the EC to refrain from allotting the symbol till all the cases in the disputes pertaining to the party are settled. His representation to the EC has not been acted upon, he submitted.

Only in February 2023, the EC had granted the symbol to the AIADMK led by former Chief Minister EPS ahead of the Assembly bypoll for the Erode East constituency on a direction from the Supreme Court. The party had contested on this symbol in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Prior to the LS elections, the AIADMK had walked out of the BJP-led NDA. The EC’s present stand brings a new twist.

At a recent event to commemorate the centenary of Janaiki Ramachandran, wife of AIADMK founder and matinee icon MG Ramachanran (MGR), Rajinikanth had said the ‘Two Leaves’ symbol is the ‘Brahmastra’ of the party. It is synonymous with MGR since he had chosen it as the party’s symbol when he founded it in 1972.

The EC told the Bench that it had served notices on the AIADMK on receipt of the representation from the petitioner and had received the response as well. The Commission would take four weeks to arrive at a decision, it was submitted.

Intervening, senior counsel PH Pandian, representing expelled AIADMK leader O Panneerselvam, informed the court that they had not been served the notice though he was an important party in the dispute over the leadership of the party. Then, the Bench, recording the submission of the EC, directed it to hear all parties before taking a decision. However, before disposing of the petition, the Judges asked what more was to be decided when the Supreme Court had upheld the High Court orders passed on the issue pertaining to the leadership. At this, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that only interim orders had been passed and the main civil suits were still pending before the High Court.