Can’t remain silent in Assembly and then challenge procedure legally: Madras HC tells AIADMK on Mekedatu resolution

CHENNAI: Holding that members who remained silent despite having an opportunity to object cannot later challenge the procedure in court, the Madras High Court dismissed an AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy's plea challenging the procedure adopted by the Assembly while adopting the resolution on the Mekedatu dam issue on June 19.

When the resolution opposing the Karnataka government's proposal to construct a dam at Mekedatu and seeking withholding of clearance for the project was taken up for debate on June 19, opposition leader Udhayanidhi Stalin raised the demand for a separate tribunal, which was incorporated into the resolution without being separately moved, seconded, debated, or put to a distinct vote.

Questioning the legality of the process through which the tribunal clause was added to the final resolution, the AIADMK leader moved the court.

However, a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that when the amendment was moved in the House, the AIADMK members had an opportunity to object, but chose to vote "Aye" or remain silent. They could not later claim that their silence should be treated as a nullity, it said.

The court also noted that when the AIADMK leader raised a grievance on the Assembly floor after the amendment was introduced, the Speaker ruled that there was no illegality and the ruling was not challenged.

The court said the party's silence and its subsequent unsuccessful attempt to reopen the issue within the House showed that it was not prejudiced by the amendment.

"This is not a case of a citizen who was shut out or misled; it is a case of a member, and of the party he belongs to, who was present in the House when the amendment was proposed, read out, and voted upon. A challenge of this kind cannot succeed unless prejudice is 'ex facie apparent'," the court observed, adding that the petitioner had an opportunity to object to the alleged irregularity at the relevant time but chose not to do so.

"Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are not obliged to entertain a challenge founded on an irregularity that the petitioner himself was in a position to object to at the time, and chose not to," it remarked.

According to the opposition party, although Article 212 of the Constitution bars courts from questioning legislative proceedings, its challenge was to the authenticity of the document communicated to the Union government.

The court, however, held that the challenge concerned the procedure followed by the House and the alleged failure to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. Therefore, it fell within Article 212 (1), which bars courts from entertaining challenges based on procedural irregularities in legislative proceedings.

Holding that there was no substantive illegality, mala fide or breach of any constitutional limitation, the bench dismissed the plea.