Legislative Oversight Row: AIADMK Whip Sues Over Mekedatu Resolution Alteration
AIADMK whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy has challenged a legislative amendment regarding the Mekedatu project in the Madras High Court. The petition alleges procedural illegalities in how a demand for a federal tribunal was added to the final resolution.
Procedural Integrity Challenged in Mekedatu Dispute
Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, the AIADMK whip, has initiated a writ petition in the Madras High Court to contest the validity of an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly's resolution against Karnataka's Mekedatu Dam project. The legal action centers on the June 19 assembly proceedings, where a controversial paragraph was inserted into the final document sent to the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti. This addition demands a tribunal be established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956.
The petitioner contends that the version shared with MLAs on June 18 omitted this specific demand. According to the affidavit, while the assembly members debated and consented to the initial draft, Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay modified the document at the last moment. This change followed a request by Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Leader of the Opposition, but occurred without being formally moved, seconded, or put to a separate vote as required by Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules.
Objections from Multi-Party Coalitions
The filing highlights that the amendment faced immediate resistance from several political quarters on June 20. Representatives from the AIADMK, PMK, and CPI argued that the finalized text differed materially from the version they debated. Concerns raised by PMK and CPI members included:
- A tribunal could undermine Tamil Nadu's existing legal standing before the Supreme Court.
- Additional litigation might compromise the state's position with the Cauvery Water Management Authority.
- The resolution was inaccurately communicated to the central government as a unanimous decision despite these recorded objections.
Constitutional Limits of House Immunity
Krishnamurthy argues that the judiciary must intervene to protect the accuracy of legislative records. While Article 212 of the Constitution shields internal house proceedings from scrutiny regarding procedural irregularities, the petitioner asserts this case involves a substantive jurisdictional error. The affidavit claims that because no statutory appeal or correction mechanism exists for legislative records, the High Court must exercise its powers under Article 226.
The case is scheduled for a hearing this Thursday before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushruth Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan. The outcome will likely determine whether the original June 18 draft stands as the only validly adopted resolution of the House.
Source: The Hindu — National
