Hyderabad: The Centre has not made any changes to the AP Reorganisation Bill with regard to amending the contentious Article 371D as Chief Minister N. Kiran Kumar Reddy alleged on Friday.
The Chief Minister’s view came as a surprise to officials involved in the state bifurcation process, both at the Centre and state level.
Top officials in the ministry of home affairs said that the amendment to Article 371D and its application to the two successor states is part of the Reorganisation Bill. “Where is the question of modifying the Bill when the Union Cabinet approved this procedure?” said a senior official.
The Chief Minister has been saying that the Centre had modified the Bill before sending it to the state Assembly.
CM’s word makes anti-T men happy
Chief Minister N. Kiran Kumar Reddy had told his Cabinet ministers, MLAs from the Seemandhra region and the media that the Centre had proposed that Article 371D should be amended prior to the bifurcation.
Hearing this, ministers from Seemandhra were jubilant. They gave interviews to TV channels in which they said that the formation of Telangana state was far away as amending 371D separately requires the approval of Parliament with two-third members present and supporting it, as well as 50 per cent of state legislatures.
But officials in the know have dismissed this as either a misreading of the Bill or a deliberate attempt to confuse legislators.
Sources said that in part XII of the Bill, the Centre has clearly spelt out its strategy of replacing the “state of Andhra Pradesh” with “state of Andhra Pradesh and state of Telangana”. In place of “the requirements of the state as a whole”, the Centre substituted “the requirements of each state”.
In fact, the Group of Ministers that framed the draft Bill ignored the Legislative Department’s view that 371D should be amended with approval of Parliament as well as 50 per cent of state legislatures. The department said “it cannot be achieved by providing for a clause in the Reorganisation Bill by way of consequential amendment invoking Article 4 of the Constitution”.
The GoM on the other hand felt that though it would be “legally more sound” to follow the procedure suggested by the legislative department, the “balance of convenience” would lie in favour of making the amendment part of the Reorganisation Bill.
