AIADMK whip questions amendment of assembly resolution against Mekedatu project

AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy has filed a plea in the Madras High Court challenging an amendment to a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature on June 19 against the proposed construction of the Mekedatu Dam by the state of Karnataka.

The petitioner objected to the inclusion of a clause seeking 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 was brought up for hearing before a first division bench of Chief Justice Sushruth Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Thursday.

In his affidavit, Mr. Krishnamurthy said that the copy of the resolution circulated by the MLA on June 18 did not contain the demand for constitution of a tribunal under the 1956 Act, while it was inserted in the final resolution communicated to the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti.

The court was told that the lawmakers discussed and agreed to pass only the resolution circulated to them. However, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay accepted a last-minute request by Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin to include the demand for a tribunal. “The said amendment was never separately sent, assigned, discussed or put to vote in accordance with Article 104 of the Rules of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,” the petitioner complained.

On 20 June, AIADMK, PMK and CPI MLAs raised objections to the amended resolution, which was announced unanimously by the assembly, as it differed substantially from the one discussed by the members. Stating that Article 212 of the Constitution only protects procedural defects in the House of Representatives, the petitioner stated that he insisted on judicial intervention in the present case in order to preserve the authenticity of legislative records and to prevent the constitutional authorities from acting on the basis of an amended resolution that was not legally approved by the House of Representatives.

The petitioner also said that PMK and CPI MLAs told the House that setting up the tribunal would be unnecessary and potentially harmful to Tamil Nadu’s legal standing before the Supreme Court and the Cauvery Water Management Authority. Despite these objections, the amended resolution was communicated to the center as unanimously passed by the assembly.

Therefore, stating that the original resolution circulated by the MLA on June 18 itself can be considered validly passed by the House, the petitioner urged the court to review whether the amendment was made in accordance with the law. Explaining his reasons for approaching the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, he said there was no statutory remedy, review or other redressal mechanism by which he could seek a review of the legality of the change or ensure the rectification of the official legislative record.

“Although legislative proceedings are generally protected under Article 212 of the Constitution, judicial review remains in place if the challenge concerns substantive illegality, jurisdictional error, violation of the Constitution or actions contrary to mandatory provisions governing the functioning of the legislature,” reads the petitioner’s affidavit.

He also said: “The present objection is not against a mere procedural irregularity but against the publication and communication of a resolution which was never validly passed by the House in accordance with the rules.

Published – 30 Jul 2026 0:45 AM IST