AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy has filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, challenging an amendment made to a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on June 19 against the proposed construction of Mekedatu Dam by the State of Karnataka.
The petitioner has objected to the inclusion of a paragraph demanding the constitution of a tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, to resolve the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the proposed dam. The writ petition has been listed for hearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushruth Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Thursday.
Mr. Krishnamurthy, in his affidavit, said a copy of the resolution circulated to the MLAs on June 18, did not contain the demand for the constitution of a tribunal under the 1956 Act, whereas it had been inserted in the final resolution communicated to the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti.
The court was told the legislators had debated and agreed upon passing only the resolution that was circulated to them. However, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had, at the last moment, accepted a request made by the Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin to include the demand for constitution of the tribunal. “The said amendment was never separately moved, seconded, debated or put to vote in accordance with Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules,” the petitioner complained.
On June 20, AIADMK, PMK, and CPI MLAs raised objections to the amended resolution reported to have been passed unanimously by the Assembly, because it was materially different from the one debated by the members. Stating that Article 212 of the Constitution protects only procedural irregularities within the House, the petitioner said he was insisting upon a judicial intervention in the present matter to preserve the authenticity of legislative records and to prevent constitutional authorities from acting upon an amended resolution which was not validly approved by the House.
The petitioner also said the PMK and CPI MLAs had told the House that the constitution of a tribunal would be unnecessary and potentially detrimental to Tamil Nadu’s legal position before the Supreme Court and the Cauvery Water Management Authority. Despite such objections, the amended resolution was communicated to the Centre as having being passed unanimously by the Assembly.
Therefore, stating that the original resolution circulated to the MLAs on June 18 alone could be treated as having been validly adopted by the House, the petitioner urged the court to examine whether the amendment was made in accordance with law. Explaining the reasons for having approached the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he said there existed no statutory appeal, revision or other corrective mechanism by which he could seek examination of the legality of the amendment or secure correction of the official legislative record.
“Though legislative proceedings generally enjoy protection under Article 212 of the Constitution, judicial review survives where the challenge concerns substantive illegality, jurisdictional error, constitutional violation or action contrary to mandatory provisions governing legislative functioning,” the petitioner’s affidavit read.
He also said: “The present challenge is not directed against a mere procedural irregularity but against publication and communication of a resolution that was never validly adopted by the House in accordance with the rules.”
Published – July 30, 2026 12:45 am IST
