AG plays video clips of Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings before Madras High Court in case against Mekedat’s amended resolution

The AG relied on a chain of Supreme Court decisions to argue that courts cannot scrutinize the legislature’s actions for procedural defects. | Photo credit: FILE PHOTO

Advocate General Vijay Narayan on Wednesday (September 9, 2026) played three video clips of the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly before the Madras High Court to prove that it was only an amended resolution against the proposed Mekedatu Dam across the Cauvery River that was put to a vote and unanimously passed by the House.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan viewed the video clips of Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Udhayanidhi Stalin’s request to move the amendment, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s decision to accept the request and then JCD Chairman Prabhakar’s act of moving the amended resolution on July 20, 216.

Pointing out that the Speaker had made it clear in the House that he was giving a vote on the amended resolution, the AG said that all Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) welcomed the amended resolution by banging their tables and none of them, including AIADMK members, raised any objection leading to the Speaker declaring that it was passed unanimously.

Arguing on facts, Mr Narayan urged the court to review whether the plea filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy challenging the amendment to the resolution is even maintainable. He said that under Article 212 of the Constitution, the courts were expressly barred from inquiring into the validity of any proceeding of the State Legislature on the ground of alleged procedural impropriety.

The AG also relied on a chain of Supreme Court decisions, including a decision by a five-judge bench, to argue that courts cannot scrutinize the legislature’s actions for procedural irregularities.

On the other hand, senior counsel SR Rajagopal, representing the AIADMK whip, argued that the writ petition was very much maintainable as the amended resolution did not stay in the House but was communicated to the Center for follow-up.

Mr. Rajagopal alleged that the members of the House only deliberated on the pre-amended resolution on July 19, 2026 and only at the end of the proceedings did the LoP rise to table its demand for an amendment urging the Center to constitute a new tribunal to resolve the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the proposed construction of the Mekedatu Dam.

The senior counsel argued that the amendment was not brought up for discussion at all and urged the court to quash the amendment insisting on setting up a new court. After hearing both sides, the judges reserved their judgment on the suit.

Published – 10 Sep 2026 0:39 IST