Hyderabad: Citing other judgements, critics said that the Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh had ruled in 2011: “Parliament cannot take away the powers of the state executive or the state legislature in respect of matters enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.” List II of the Seventh Schedule includes public order and police.
In the Mangal Singh case, the court had ruled: “Police and law and order fall under Entities 1 and 2 of List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and as such are state subjects as per Article 246 (3) of the Constitution. Therefore, only the state can legislate or make provisions on these issues.” Asked about Mr Ramesh’s contention, MIM supremo Asaduddin Owaisi told this correspondent: “He may say anything, but Governor’s control over law and order is unconstitutional. We will challenge it in the Supreme Court” after it is notified.
He added: “Law and order is a state subject. Governor’s control of law and order over Hyderabad is not only unconstitutional, but against the spirit of federalism. There are Supreme Court judgments on such issues. We have a good case.” Mr Owaisi said the Centre was not safeguarding the interests of Seemandhra but those of vested interests. Former minster and advocate Gade Venkat Reddy said that there is no provision for a common capital in the Constitution. Mr Venkat Reddy has submitted a memorandum to the President alleging that the Bill was unconstitutional.
