LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 23 September 2026

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?

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 complaint that a clause was incorporated into a Resolution without a separate motion and division is barred by Article 212.

Yes. A complaint that a clause was incorporated into a Resolution without a separate motion and division is barred by Article 212. It is not a complaint that the House lacked the power to pass such a Resolution, nor that the Resolution is void for want of jurisdiction, nor that it was carried by fraud or in bad faith; re-characterising the grievance as one of authenticity does not survive scrutiny, because what is said to be wrong is only the sequence of steps by which the text was arrived at. (¶13, 14)

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 13In the present case, the grievance is that a suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition during debate was accepted by the Chief Minister and incorporated into a Resolution without a separate formal motion, seconder, debate and division under Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules. That is, by definition, a complaint about the internal procedure by which the House arrived at its Resolution. It is not a complaint that the House lacked the power to pass such a Resolution, nor that the Resolution is void for want of jurisdiction, nor that it was carried by fraud or in bad faith. The petitioner's own affidavit disclaims any challenge to the substance of the Assembly's opposition to the Mekedatu project; he confines himself to the process. That is exactly the kind of grievance Article 212 of the Constitution of India was designed to keep outside the doors of this Court.
Paragraph 14The petitioner's attempt to escape this conclusion by characterizing the issue as one of "authenticity" rather than "procedure" does not survive scrutiny. What is said to be inauthentic is not the text of the Resolution, as nobody disputes what was said, by whom, or that it was said in the House and recorded in the House's own proceedings, which the petitioner himself relies upon and annexes to his pleadings. What is said to be wrong is only the sequence of steps by which that text was arrived at. A document is not rendered a stranger to the House merely because a party disputes whether Rule 104 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules was fully complied with in incorporating it and that dispute is, at its core, about procedure, and procedure is precisely what Article 212 of the Constitution of India places beyond the reach of a writ court.
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
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?Can a Member present when an amendment was proposed and voted upon later ask a court to treat his silence as a nullity?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections