Centre defends Andhra Pradesh division decision

DC CORRESPONDENT | DECCAN CHRONICLE
Published Aug 20, 2014, 7:39 am IST
Updated Mar 31, 2019, 11:02 am IST
Picture for representational purpose
 Picture for representational purpose

Hyderabad: The Centre has defended its action before the Hyderabad High Court in bifurcation of the Andhra Pradesh to create separate state of Telangana.

The Centre has assured the court that Article 371 D will be implemented strictly in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states.

The ministry of home aff-airs has submitted an affidavit before the High Court pursuant to its direction in a PIL challenging the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 by advocate P.V. Krishnaiah.

The petitioner has mainly contended that the Centre has no power to divide a state which was formed after merging two territories. He said Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956 after merging the Telangana.

The ministry has submitted that in Article 3 of the Constitution there was no such provision which can bar Parliament to carve out a separate state by merging two or more territories which were merged earlier for creation of a separate state. It was said that, previously, states like Uttar Pradesh and Haryana had bifurcated like this.

The ministry informed the court that after considering the recommendations of Justice Srikrishna Committee and the opinions of all political parties expressed in the meeting conducted on January 6,  2011, by the Government of India, the Telangana state was created.

The Centre submitted that new state of Telangana has been formed as per the provisions under Article 3 of the Constitution and the Article was not violating the preamble of the Constitution and its basic structure.

Referring to the contentions of the petitioner that the Centre has no power to bifurcate the AP as long as the Article 371 D is in force, the Centre submitted that Parliament has extended the jurisdiction of the Article for the both the states by incorporating a provision under the AP Reorganisation Act.

Refuting the contentions of the petitioner that the amendment to the Article in 1955 as a ultra vires to the Constitution, the Centre submitted that prior to the amendment, the views of the state Assembly was ascertained not only with respect to the introduction of the Bill for formation or separation of a state, but also the provisions thereof, but those words have been omitted in the amended proviso, the only requirement being a reference to the Bill which comes within purview of Article 3.

The Centre made it clear that Parliament is not obliged to follow the views of state Assembly.

...
Location: Andhra Pradesh




ADVERTISEMENT

More From Politics

-->