The Madras High Court has held that legislators who are present when an amendment is proposed and put to vote, but neither object nor raise a procedural challenge at the time, cannot later approach the courts questioning the manner in which the measure was adopted.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by AIADMK Official Whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy over an amendment incorporated into a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution concerning Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam.
The resolution was passed by the Assembly on June 19 and opposed the proposed project.
Krishnamurthy contended that the version circulated to legislators the previous day only opposed the Mekedatu project and called for withholding the necessary clearances. According to his petition, it did not include a proposal seeking the constitution of a fresh tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act.
During the Assembly debate, the Leader of the Opposition suggested adding the tribunal demand. The Chief Minister accepted the proposal and asked the Speaker to include it in the resolution.
The petitioner argued that the additional clause had not been separately moved, seconded, debated or put to an independent vote as required under the Assembly’s rules.
The Assembly Secretary, however, informed the High Court that the amended resolution had been read out before the House and subjected to a voice vote. No legislator objected and the Speaker subsequently declared the resolution unanimously adopted.
The High Court found that the circumstances did not provide grounds for judicial interference.
The Bench noted that members who were present and had an opportunity to raise an objection but instead voted in favour or remained silent could not subsequently ask the court to disregard that conduct.
The Court also invoked the broader principle that a person who witnesses an act without protest cannot ordinarily wait and challenge it later.
Article 212 shields legislative procedure
A central issue before the Court was Article 212 of the Constitution, which restricts judicial scrutiny of legislative proceedings on the ground of procedural irregularity.
The Bench said the Assembly clearly possessed the authority to adopt a resolution concerning the Mekedatu project and to seek the creation of another tribunal. Any alleged failure to follow the Assembly’s procedure with complete precision, therefore, concerned the manner in which that power was exercised rather than an absence of jurisdiction.
The Court also rejected the contention that the tribunal proposal required a separate vote.
Once the amended resolution had been read out before the House and no objection was raised, the subsequent voice vote on the resolution was sufficient to cover the amended version, the Bench held.
The judges further observed that a High Court does not function as an appellate forum over a State legislature. Judicial intervention in legislative proceedings may arise where there is a lack of jurisdiction, substantive illegality, mala fide action or violation of a constitutional restriction.
The Court found that none of those circumstances had been established in the present case.
The petition was consequently dismissed.
