Madras High Court Dismisses AIADMK Whip’s Plea Challenging Amendment to Mekedatu Resolution
The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by AIADMK Assembly whip Agri S.S. Krishnamurthy challenging an amendment made to a Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly resolution opposing Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam project on the Cauvery. The petition questioned the legality of adding a demand for the constitution of a fresh tribunal to adjudicate the inter-State water dispute.
The case arose from a resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly on June 19, 2026, opposing Karnataka’s proposal to construct a balancing reservoir at Mekedatu. During the proceedings, an additional provision seeking a new tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was incorporated into the resolution.
Krishnamurthy argued that the tribunal-related provision was not included in the draft resolution circulated to legislators on June 18. His case was that the amendment was introduced at the conclusion of the debate without being properly moved, seconded, debated or separately put to vote under the Assembly’s procedure.
The AIADMK side also objected to the manner in which the final resolution was subsequently communicated to the Union government. According to the petitioner’s case, although AIADMK, PMK and CPI members had opposed the amendment, the final communication described the resolution as having been adopted unanimously.
The State government disputed these allegations. It maintained that the resolution was adopted with the consent of the petitioner and the party he represented and argued that Krishnamurthy could not subsequently approach the court after supporting the resolution in the Assembly.
The High Court had earlier admitted the challenge and issued notice to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretary, the Chief Secretary and the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti. The matter was subsequently heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan.
During the final hearing in September, the Advocate General placed video recordings of the Assembly proceedings before the court. The recordings showed Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin proposing the amendment, Chief Minister Vijay accepting it and the Speaker putting the amended resolution to the House. The court reserved its order after hearing both sides.
The controversy centres on the constitutional and procedural limits surrounding resolutions passed by a state legislature. An Assembly resolution generally does not operate as legislation and does not automatically bind the Union government or another state. However, such resolutions can formally record the position of an elected House and carry political and institutional significance, particularly in inter-State disputes.
The Mekedatu issue has remained a major point of contention between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka because the proposed project concerns the Cauvery river system. Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed Karnataka’s proposal, while Karnataka has maintained its position regarding the proposed reservoir project.
The June resolution was adopted during the first budget session of the new Tamil Nadu government. Reports from the Assembly proceedings said the DMK participated in the debate but walked out during the voting, while the resolution received support from the ruling side and several other members; AIADMK and PMK members opposed the measure.
With the High Court now dismissing the AIADMK whip’s challenge, the dispute over the procedural validity of the amendment has been decided at the High Court level. The ruling does not itself resolve the underlying Cauvery water dispute or determine whether Karnataka can proceed with the Mekedatu project.
The case also highlights the continuing legal and political significance of Assembly resolutions on inter-State river disputes. While such resolutions generally do not have the force of statutes, they can be used by state legislatures to formally communicate their position to the Union government and to strengthen a state’s negotiating position in disputes involving shared natural resources.
