The Madras High Court on Tuesday took significant action by admitting a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by DMK party member and Mayiladuthural MP, D Ramalingam, challenging the constitutionality of the Dam Safety Act (Act 41 of 2021). The court has issued notices to the Union Ministries of Law and Justice and Jal Shakti in response to the petition.
During the proceedings, senior advocate and DMK MP P Wilson argued that the Parliament lacked the competence to enact laws on matters listed under List II entry 17 of the Constitution, which typically fall within the state’s legislative domain. Wilson emphasized that this overreach violates the doctrine of cooperative federalism.
The bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice M N Bhandari and Justice P D Audikesavalu, directed Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan to ensure that the Union government refrains from constituting any authority under the newly notified act until further notice. Sankaranarayanan confirmed that no such authority had yet been formed.
Wilson’s petition argues that the Dam Safety Act is “ex-facie unconstitutional” and “ultra vires” because it usurps control over major dams from the states, thus encroaching upon the exclusive legislative purview of state governments. The Union government’s intent to establish a National Committee on Dam Safety and a National Dam Safety Authority was pointed out as steps that would strip states of their control over both intra-state and inter-state dams.
Furthermore, Wilson criticized various provisions of the Act as arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable, infringing upon fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. He contends that the Act undermines the federal structure, which is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, thereby making it unconstitutional.
Also Read
The crux of Wilson’s argument is that the Act’s primary purpose is to regulate the functioning and safety of dams, a role that should exclusively belong to state legislatures under entry 17 of List II. By overstepping this boundary, the Union government has, according to Wilson, rendered the Act void from the outset.
