On its second hearing itself, The Election Commission rejected the plea by the Sasikala faction to permanently freeze the two-leave symbol. The EC also posted the matter for another hearing on October 23.

The Supreme Court had directed the EC to settle the matter by November 10. This, after the TTV faction challenged the Madras High Court's order that EC should release its verdict by October 31. Disagreeing with the affidavits filed by the OPS and the EPS camp, former Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, who represented the Sasikala camp argued that majority of the AIADMK is on their side.

Speaking to the reporters, he further added, "Unless the authenticity of the affidavits can be determined by the EC, there is no material before the commission to actually decide the matter of the majority support." He also proposed that majority support under the party constitution can also be considered on the basis of the support of the primary members and not only on the basis of general council members. He said, "At the worst, even if all our arguments fail, even then symbol cannot be granted to one faction and it has to be frozen."

Meanwhile, the opposition OPS-EPS camp slammed the Sasikala faction by saying that they wanted to freeze the symbol because they were losing the legal battle.

Former MP-Manoj Pandian-also the counsel of the OPS-EPS side said, "It is their attempts to delay the hearing process by questioning the authenticity of the affidavits. Despite all this, we are sure to get the symbol."

The EPS-OPS camp had demanded claim of the symbol, citing their union and the fact that majority of the MLAs were on their side. However, in an interim order in March this year, the EC had barred the then rivals- Palaniswami and Panneerselvam- from using the name and the symbol of the AIADMK for the RK Nagar bypolls. Post-merger, the AIADMK general council on September 12 adopted resolutions ousting Sasikala as interim geeral secretary and Dhinakaran as her deputy. Furthermore, TTV approached the Election Commission on September 14, urging it to declare as invalid the general council meeting, citing a high court order that said any decision taken at the impunged meeting will be subject to final outcome in the appeal pending before the court.