Hyderabad: After bifurcation, police and security forces will be under the “final” control of the Governor for a period of 10 years in the city to maintain public order. The governor will also be responsible for matters relating to law and order, internal security and security of vital installations in the common capital area of GHMC.
Though the draft T-Bill mentions all people residing in the GHMC area, the move is aimed at protecting the life and properties of people who have migrated from Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to GHMC.
There is a rider that says the Governor shall exercise his special responsibilities in consultation with the Council of Ministers of Telangana. There is, however, no clarity in the draft Bill on the control of the Governor over day-to-day policing. The common governor will also allot buildings and other accommodations in Hyderabad to both the governments.
Interestingly, regarding the common Governor, the legal department has categorically stated that “no such feasibility exists with regard to the state of AP and this may require a Constitutional amendment and, therefore, it may not be feasible to incorporate a provision to that effect in the State Reorganisation Act relating to bifurcation.” It stated that article 371H regarding Arunachal Pradesh was under special circumstances.
However, overriding the legal opinion, the draft Bill stated, “Necessary provision for a common Governor for the successor states have been incorporated in the draft Bill as suggested by the administrative ministry.”
An additional battalion of RAF to the existing 99th battalion will be deployed in the city for a period of five years. The Group of Ministers has dropped the recommendation for the appointment of a Lt. Governor or administrator for law and order in GHMC area. The Governor will discharge the special responsibilities of the above subjects in consultation with the Council of Ministers but will not be bound by their advice alone.
The coordination council for law and order in the common capital area has been dropped as the powers to make supplemental provisions shall not override the powers vested in the state under the Constitution.
“The growth of Hyderabad was due to influx of people of the other two regions into the city. The GoM felt that the responsibility should be given to the Governor to ensure law and order, internal security and management of government accommodation etc. is maintained in an even manner.”
Next: GoM ignored legislative, legal departments’ advice
GoM ignored legislative, legal departments’ advice
N. Vamsi Srinivas | DC
Hyderabad: In its hurry to create Telangana, the Centre has completely ignored the advices of the legal and legislative affairs departments on crucial issues including Article 371 D and entrusting policing powers to the Governor in the common capital.
Significantly, the Group of Ministers felt that it would be “legally more sound” to bring in amendments to the Constitution to overcome the inadequacies pointed out by the respective departments in the Reorganisation Bill.
But, “considering the overall situation” the GoM said “the balance of convenience would lie in favour of following the precedents” and it thus recommended to the Centre to make any required changes through the Reorganisation Bill itself.
“The Centre is banking heavily on Article 4 to have the overriding effect on the procedures otherwise suggested by the departments of legal and legislative affairs,” said a former bureaucrat. But, there are several judgements by the Supreme Court, which have made it clear that the laws enacted by Parliament cannot go against the basic structure of the Constitution.
Quoting a five-judge Constitution bench of the Apex Court in the Mangal Singh and others Vs. Union of India and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. UoI, the department of Legal Affairs had also informed the GoM that the power (of Parliament) to make supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions cannot override the Constitutional scheme.
On entrusting powers of maintaining law and order to the Governor in the common capital, the Law department had said that Parliament cannot take away powers vested in the state under the Constitution (list II or seventh schedule). It even recommended insertion of an Article on the lines of 371H through Constitutional amendment to empower the governor. But the GoM and the Centre ignored the same.
In the case of Article 371 D, the GoM ignored Attorney General Vahnavati’s view that 371 D could not be made applicable to the state of AP after the creation of the new state. It also ignored the department’s view that either to omit or modify Article 371 D, mere inclusion of a clause in the Reorganisation Bill by way of consequential amendment invoking Article 4 was not sufficient.
The GoM, however, went by the precedents wherein subsections in Article 371 were amended twice through incorporating clauses in the Bill.
