Madras HC dismisses AIADMK’s petition against Assembly resolution calling for Tribunal to resolve Mekedatu dam issue

Advocate General Vijay Narayan submitted that the amended resolution was put to vote as per the request of the Chief Minister and none had objected to it then.
Madras HC
Madras HC File Photo | Express
Updated on: 
2 min read

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition filed by AIADMK whip Agri SS Krishnamurthy challenging the amendment made to the Assembly resolution against the proposed Mekedatu project. The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the orders on Wednesday dismissing the petition.

The petitioner had stated that the resolution was adopted in the Assembly on June 19 opposing the proposal of the Karnataka government to construct a dam at Mekedatu across Cauvery.

An amendment was made in the resolution to include the clause demanding the centre set up a Tribunal, as per the request of the Leader of Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin, under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, but it was not put to vote before the resolution was adopted.

Madras HC
Minister justifies separate tribunal for Mekedatu issue; AIADMK stages walk out

The bench noted that none of the members of the petitioner’s party had objected when the amended resolution was put to vote and the vote itself was unanimous.

“This is not an unusual or irregular way for a resolution to acquire its final shape on the floor of a House. Legislatures routinely accept oral suggestions or modifications during a minister’s reply, and unless a rule in absolute terms forecloses that course, the presiding officer’s acceptance of it, unopposed by the House, is not something a court can second-guess,” the bench said in the order.

It also stated that a member cannot approach the court and ask to treat their silence as a nullity after saying “Aye” when the resolution was put to vote in the House; having permitted the resolution to be adopted without any protest, the member cannot make complaint.

“The petitioner’s own conduct, his continued presence through the debate, his silence at the vote, and his party’s subsequent unsuccessful attempt to reopen the issue within the House itself demonstrates that no such prejudice exists,” the bench said.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com