The Madras High Court has held that Members of the Legislative Assembly who remain silent when an amendment is proposed and put to vote cannot later approach the court to challenge the manner in which it was adopted. The Court made the observation while dismissing a challenge to a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution concerning the Mekedatu dam issue.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered the judgment on September 23, 2026, in a petition filed by AIADMK Official Whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy. The Bench held that the grievance raised by the petitioner concerned the internal procedure of the House and was therefore protected from judicial scrutiny under Article 212 of the Constitution.
Background
The dispute concerned Resolution No. 2/2026 passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly on June 19, 2026, opposing Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam project. The resolution originally circulated among members on June 18 sought withholding of clearances for the project.
During the debate, a suggestion was made to include a demand for constitution of a fresh tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. The Chief Minister accepted the suggestion and asked the Speaker to incorporate it into the resolution.
Krishnamurthy argued that the additional clause had not been separately moved, seconded, debated or put to a distinct vote as contemplated under Rule 104 of the Assembly Rules. He therefore sought removal of that portion from the resolution communicated to the Union Government.
The Assembly Secretary, however, stated that the amended resolution was read out in the House and put to a voice vote. According to the Secretary, no member opposed it and the Speaker declared it unanimously carried.
The High Court held that the challenge essentially concerned the internal procedure of the Legislature. It therefore attracted the protection under Article 212, which prevents courts from questioning legislative proceedings merely on the ground of procedural irregularity.
The Bench observed that the Assembly had the authority to pass a resolution concerning Mekedatu and to seek a fresh tribunal. The complaint was instead about the manner in which the additional clause was incorporated.
The Court stated:
“If members present in the House, who had the opportunity then and there to object, chose instead to vote ‘Aye’ or to remain silent, they cannot, weeks later, ask a court to treat their own silence as a nullity.”
The Bench further noted that the amended resolution had been placed before the House and put to a voice vote without objection. It held that a voice vote on the resolution in its amended form constituted a valid vote, and there was no requirement for every sentence of a composite resolution to be separately voted upon.
The Court also emphasised that a High Court is not an appellate authority over a State Legislature. Judicial review may arise in serious cases involving matters such as lack of jurisdiction, substantive illegality, mala fides or breach of a constitutional limitation. The Bench found that no such circumstance had been established in the present case.
The Madras High Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 212 and, in any event, failed on merits.
The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected interim applications were closed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy v. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 29570 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: September 23, 2026
