Court holds that dispute over inclusion of tribunal clause was an internal procedural matter barred from judicial review under Article 212 of the Constitution
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a portion of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s Resolution on the Mekedatu dam issue, holding that the dispute concerned an internal legislative procedure protected from judicial scrutiny under Article 212 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan was hearing a petition filed by Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy. The petitioner sought to quash the part of Resolution No. 2/2026, passed on June 19, 2026, which urged the Union Government to constitute a fresh tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. He also sought a direction to withdraw the amended communication sent to the Union Government and to restore the original version of the Resolution circulated to members a day earlier.
The petitioner argued that the tribunal clause was not part of the Resolution initially circulated on June 18, 2026, and was introduced only during the Assembly debate the next day. According to him, the clause was not separately moved, seconded, debated or voted upon in the manner required under Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. He contended that this was not a mere procedural irregularity but a question of authenticity of the Resolution communicated outside the House.
Rejecting the petition, the Court held that the grievance was essentially about the internal procedure of the House. It ruled that Article 212 bars courts from questioning the validity of legislative proceedings on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity. The Bench said the Assembly had the power to pass a Resolution on the Mekedatu issue and to urge constitution of a fresh tribunal; therefore, even if there was any deviation from the prescribed procedure, it would amount only to an irregular exercise of jurisdiction, not a lack of jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the Chief Minister, while replying to the debate, accepted a suggestion made on the floor of the House and asked the Speaker to include it in the Resolution. The Speaker then put the amended Resolution to a voice vote, and no member objected at that time. The Resolution was carried unanimously and forwarded to the Union Government in terms of the Assembly Rules.
The Bench also rejected the petitioner’s attempt to label the issue as one of “authenticity” rather than procedure. It observed that there was no dispute about what was said in the House or what text was recorded; the real complaint was about the sequence by which the text was adopted. Such a challenge, the Court said, remained squarely barred by Article 212.
Referring to several Supreme Court decisions, including Pandit M.S.M. Sharma, Keshav Singh, Ramadas Athawale and the recent decision in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the Court reiterated that legislatures are the sole judges of their internal proceedings, subject only to constitutional limitations. It held that judicial review cannot be invoked merely because a party believes a more elaborate procedure should have been followed.
On merits as well, the Court found no illegality. It said the Speaker was competent under Rule 286 to decide questions of procedure, and the acceptance of an oral modification during debate, followed by an unopposed voice vote, was not something a writ court could second-guess. The Bench also noted that the same grievance had earlier been raised in the House itself on August 7, 2026, and the Speaker had ruled that no illegality had occurred.
Finding no case of want of jurisdiction, substantive illegality, mala fides or constitutional violation, the Court dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected interim applications. No order as to costs was made.
Bottom Line :
Constitutional Law - Article 212 bars judicial review of internal legislative proceedings on ground of procedural irregularity - Challenge to inclusion of clause in Assembly Resolution without separate motion, debate or vote held not maintainable - Even on merits, Speaker's acceptance of oral modification during debate and adoption of amended Resolution by unanimous voice vote held valid.
Statutory provision(s): Article 194 of the Constitution of India, Article 212 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, Rule 104, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, Rule 172, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, Rule 180, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, Rule 286
