Madras High Court dismisses AIADMK whip’s case against amendment to Mekedatu resolution passed by Tamil Nadu Assembly

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay moved a resolution in the Assembly against the Karnataka government’s proposal to construct a balancing reservoir across the Cauvery at Mekedatu, on June 19, 2026 | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (September 23, 2026) dismissed a writ petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy, who had challenged an amendment to a resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on June 19, 2026, against the proposed construction of Mekedatu dam across the Cauvery river by the Karnataka government.

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the case after Advocate General (A-G) Vijay Narayan played video clips of the Assembly proceedings to prove that it was, in fact, the amended resolution that was put to vote in the House by Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar and passed uananimously, after no Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) raised any objections.

The AIADMK whip had approached the court complaining that the amendment, which urges the Centre to constitute a tribunal for resolving the inter-State dispute regarding Mekedatu dam, was not debated at all in the House and that it was introduced at the last moment after almost all the members of the House had expressed their unanimous support to the unamended resolution circulated to them a day before the proceedings.

He said that Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay had agreed to carry out the amendment at the request of the Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin and such amendment ought to have been debated before being passed as an unanimous decision taken by the House. Since the amended resolution had been communicated to the Centre as well, the petitioner insisted upon withdrawing the same.

He had also urged the court to quash the portion of the resolution, which demands the constitution of a tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, and declare that the unamended resolution, expressing strong opposition to the construction of the proposed dam by the neighbouring State, as having been validly adopted by the Legislative Assembly on June 19, 2026.

On the other hand, the A-G played video clips of the request made by the Leader of the Opposition to carry out the amendment, its acceptance by the Chief Minister, and the amended resolution having been put to vote by the Speaker. He told the court it was only the amended resolution that was put to vote and none of the members, including the writ petitioner, raised any objection at that point of time.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.