LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 23 September 2026

Can a Member present when an amendment was proposed and voted upon later ask a court to treat his silence as a nullity?

Agri S.S.Krishnamurthy v. The Secretary
WP.29570/2026 · 2026:MHC:3892 · W.P.No.29570 of 2026
Coram: Justice G.Arul Murugan · Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Art.212 Constitution of India📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

A Member present when an amendment was proposed and voted upon cannot later ask a court to treat his silence as a nullity.

No. A Member present when an amendment was proposed and voted upon cannot later ask a court to treat his own silence as a nullity. 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, and that principle applies to the floor of a legislature; a challenge of this kind cannot succeed unless prejudice is ex facie apparent. (¶25)

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.212 — Art.194 — Art.226 — Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules — r.104 — r.286 — Proceedings in the Legislature — Irregularity of procedure — Constitution of India — Art.212 — Internal procedure of the House — Beyond the reach of a writ court — Held: A complaint that a clause was incorporated into a Resolution without a separate motion, seconding, debate and division is a complaint about internal procedure, which Article 212 places beyond the reach of a writ court. (¶13, 14) Constitution of India — Art.212 — Want of jurisdiction — Illegality alone remains examinable — Held further: The immunity protects the House's proceedings from being reopened merely because a rule of procedure was departed from; only a proceeding suffering from illegality, and not mere irregularity, remains open to scrutiny. (¶12) Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules — r.104 — Voice vote — No separate vote on each sentence — Held further: A voice vote taken on a Resolution after its amended form has been read out to the House without objection is a valid vote on the Resolution in that form. (¶23) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Silence at the vote — Challenge not entertained — Held further: A Member who was present when an amendment was proposed, read out and voted upon, and who did not then object, cannot later ask a court to treat his own silence as a nullity. Writ petition dismissed. (¶25, 28)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 25Second, and more fundamental, circumstance is that 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. 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. 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.
Acts & Sections
Art.212 Constitution of IndiaArt.194 Constitution of IndiaArt.226 Constitution of IndiaArt.122 Constitution of Indiar.104 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rulesr.286 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Agri S.S.Krishnamurthy v. The Secretary — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is a complaint that a clause was incorporated into a Resolution without a separate motion and division barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of India?Does Article 212 of the Constitution of India bar a challenge to irregular exercise of jurisdiction by a House but not one alleging want of jurisdiction?Is a voice vote on a Resolution whose amended form was read out without objection a valid vote in that form?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections