The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan noted that when the amendment was being moved in the house, members of the party who had an opportunity to object to it at the house itself had chosen to vote “Aye” or remain silent.

The court held that the party members could not come to the court at a later point and claim that their silence should be treated as a nullity.

“...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 principle that a person who stands by, watches an act take place, and permits it to occur without protest cannot subsequently be heard to complain of it, applies with as much force to the floor of a legislature as it does to any other public proceeding,” the court observed.

The court also noted that even after the amendment was introduced, when the leader of AIADMK party had raised a grievance in the assembly floor the Speaker ruled that there was no illegality and this ruling was also not questioned. The court thus held that the party's own silence and the subsequent unsuccessful attempt to reopen the issue showed that the party was not prejudiced by the amendment.

“This is not a case of a citizen who was shut out or misled; it is a case of a Member, and of the party he belongs to, who was present in the House when the amendment was proposed, read out and voted upon. A challenge of this kind cannot succeed unless prejudice is "ex facie apparent". 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 court observed.

The court made it clear that it could not entertain a challenge regarding an irregularity when the petitioner himself had a challenge to object it but chose not to.

“Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not obliged to entertain a challenge founded on an irregularity that the petitioner himself was in a position to object to at the time, and chose not to,” the court remarked.

The party had argued that on June 18, a resolution was circulated to them on objection to the Karnataka Government's proposal to build a dam at Mekedatu and asking the Government to withhold clearance for the project. It was submitted that on June 19, when the matter was taken up for debate, the Leader of Opposition raised the demand for a separate tribunal, and this demand was incorporated into the Resolution without being moved separately, seconded, debated or put to a distinct vote.

The party thus questioned the legality of the process by which the tribunal clause was added into the final text of the resolution. It was argued that though Article 212 bars courts from questioning the validity of legislative proceedings, in the present case, the party was challenging the authenticity of the document communicated to the Union Government.

The court noted that in the present case, the challenge was only with respect to incorporating the suggestion without a separate motion, seconding, debate and division ordinarily contemplated under Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. The court held that the complaint is one with respect to the procedure of the House and would fall under Article 212(1) of the Constitution, barring the courts from entertaining allegations of procedural irregularity.

Thus, noting that there was no substantive illegality, mala fide, or breach of constitutional limitation, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. R. Rajagopal Senior Counsel Asst by Mr. Lamech Indian and Mr. I. S. Inbadurai

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Vijay Narayan Advocate General Asst by Mr. J. Lenin Special Govt Pleader and Mr. Akash Srinandha Govt Advocate, Mr. A. Kumaraguru Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: Agri SS Krishnamurthy v The Secretary TN Legislative Assembly

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 457

Case No: WP No 29570 of 2026