MLAs who stay silent during Assembly vote cannot challenge it in court later: Madras High Court

Members of a Legislature (MLAs) who remain silent when an amendment is proposed and put to vote cannot weeks later approach a court to challenge the manner in which it was adopted, the Madras High Court held on Wednesday [Agri Krishnamurthy Vs Secretary].

A Bench of 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 challenging a portion of a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution concerning the Mekedatu dam dispute.

The Court said legislators who had an opportunity to object when the amendment was proposed but chose to vote in favour or remain silent could not subsequently ask a court to disregard their conduct. Court said,

“If members present in the House, who had the opportunity then and there to object, chose instead to vote ‘Aye’ or to remain silent, they cannot, weeks later, ask a court to treat their own silence as a nullity," the Court said.

The Court added that the principle that a 'person who watches an act take place without protest cannot later complain', applies with as much force to the floor of a legislature as it does to any other public proceeding.

The dispute arose from a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly on June 19 opposing Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam.

According to Krishnamurthy, the resolution circulated to Assembly members a day earlier merely opposed the project and sought withholding of clearances. It did not contain a demand that the Union government constitute a fresh tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act.

However, during the debate, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that such a demand be added. The Chief Minister accepted the suggestion and requested the Speaker to incorporate it into the resolution. Krishnamurthy argued that the addition was never separately moved, seconded, debated or put to a distinct vote in accordance with the Assembly Rules.

However, the Assembly Secretary told the Court that the amended resolution was read out and put to a voice vote. No member opposed it and the Speaker declared it unanimously carried.

The High Court held that the challenge was essentially directed against the Assembly’s internal procedure and was consequently barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, which prevents courts from questioning legislative proceedings merely on grounds of procedural irregularity.

The Bench said the Assembly undoubtedly had jurisdiction to pass a resolution on Mekedatu and to seek constitution of a fresh tribunal. At its highest, the allegation was that the House had not followed the prescribed procedure with sufficient precision. Such a grievance concerned an “improper or irregular exercise of jurisdiction” rather than complete lack of jurisdiction, the Court said.

It also rejected the argument that a separate vote was required on the tribunal clause. Once the amended resolution was read out and put before the House without objection, a voice vote on the entire resolution amounted to a valid vote on its amended form, the Court held.

The Bench further stressed that a High Court is not an appellate authority over a State legislature, nor is the legislature an inferior organ to the High Court. Judicial review of legislative proceedings would be warranted only in cases involving issues such as want of jurisdiction, substantive illegality, mala fides or breach of a constitutional limitation, none of which was established in the present case.

Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Senior Advocate SR Rajagopal, assisted by advocates Lamech Indian and IS Inbadurai appeared for 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]