Madras HC: courts can't review a mere 'irregularity of procedure' inside a state legislature

The Madras High Court dismissed a legislator's challenge to a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution on the Mekedatu dam project, holding that Article 212(1) of the Constitution bars courts from reviewing an irregularity of procedure inside a state legislature. An MLA had argued that a clause in the resolution, asking the Union government to constitute a fresh tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was inserted during the Chief Minister's reply without a formal motion, seconding or vote as required by the Assembly's own Rule 104, and was then wrongly communicated to the Centre as having been unanimously carried. Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that Article 212(1), read with Article 194, bars judicial review of a legislature's internal procedural irregularities, as distinct from a want of jurisdiction or an act of illegality or mala fides, applying the Supreme Court's rulings in M.S.M. Sharma v. Shree Krishna Sinha, the Keshav Singh reference, and Ramadas Athawale v. Union of India.

The Court distinguished this from cases concerning a distinct legislative decision such as an expulsion, rather than routine internal proceedings. It also found, without needing to, that the Speaker had validly exercised procedural control and that the petitioner's silence during the voice vote weakened his challenge.