Madras High Court Rules Against Silent MLAs Contesting Votes
The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding legislative proceedings, stating that Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who remain silent during an amendment proposal and vote cannot later challenge the process in court. This judgment was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on Wednesday in the case of Agri Krishnamurthy Vs Secretary.
The court dismissed a petition by AIADMK Official Whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy, who contested a portion of a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution concerning the contentious Mekedatu dam issue. The resolution was passed on June 19, opposing Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam project.
Background of the Case
Krishnamurthy argued that the resolution, which was circulated to Assembly members a day before the vote, only opposed the Mekedatu project and sought the withholding of clearances. It did not initially demand that the Union government set up a new tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. However, during the debate, the Leader of the Opposition proposed adding this demand, which the Chief Minister accepted. This addition was allegedly not separately moved, seconded, or debated, nor was it put to a distinct vote according to Assembly Rules, Krishnamurthy contended.
The Assembly Secretary informed the Court that the amended resolution was read out and subjected to a voice vote, during which no opposition was voiced, leading the Speaker to declare it unanimously carried.
Judgment and Legal Interpretation
The High Court emphasized that legislators who had the opportunity to object but chose to either vote ‘Aye’ or remain silent cannot later claim their silence as a nullity in court. This principle, the court noted, is applicable to legislative proceedings just as it is to any other public proceedings.
The court stated that the challenge was fundamentally against the Assembly’s internal procedure, which is protected under Article 212 of the Indian Constitution. This article prohibits judicial interference in legislative proceedings based on procedural irregularities alone.
The Bench clarified that the Tamil Nadu Assembly had the jurisdiction to pass the resolution on Mekedatu and seek the constitution of a fresh tribunal. Any alleged procedural oversight amounted to an “improper or irregular exercise of jurisdiction,” rather than an absence of jurisdiction.
Conclusion and Legal Representation
The High Court concluded that a separate vote on the tribunal clause was not necessary. Once the resolution, as amended, was read and presented without objection, a voice vote on the entire resolution sufficed. The Court reiterated that it does not serve as an appellate authority over State legislatures, nor is the legislature subordinate to the High Court.
More Read
Judicial review of legislative proceedings is justified only in cases involving jurisdictional issues, substantive illegality, mala fide intentions, or constitutional breaches, none of which were evident in this case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Senior Advocate SR Rajagopal, assisted by advocates Lamech Indian and IS Inbadurai, represented the petitioner. Advocate General Vijay Narayan, assisted by Special Government Pleader J Lenin and Government Advocate Akash Srinandha, represented the State and the Assembly Secretary. Senior Panel Counsel A Kumaraguru appeared for the Union government.
[Read Judgment]
