By
DA Somayajulu | ENS - HYDERABAD
Published: 19th October 2013 01:00 PM
AS per the recommendation of the States Reorganisation Commission
(SRC) headed by Justice Fazal Ali, Andhra Pradesh was formed as the
first linguistic state in India on November 1, 1956 by merging the
Telangana area of Hyderabad state with Andhra state.
The Hyderabad state comprised, in addition to Telangana, five districts of Marathwada and three of Hyderabad-Karnataka. The Marathwada region was merged with Maharashtra and the three districts of Hyderabad-Karnataka were merged with Karnataka. About 25 states have been formed in India on linguistic basis since 1956.
Thus, Telangana is not the only region that was demerged from the Hyderabad state and merged with another province to form a new linguistic state. Several other provinces were similarly demerged or merged with other provinces for creation of linguistic states. Thus, there was nothing unusual about Telangana being merged with Andhra for formation of Andhra Pradesh.
NO POLICY: The Union cabinet, which met on October 3, 2013, took the decision to create Telangana state with Hyderabad city included therein. But it has not spelt out the basis for such a major decision. Apparently, the government does not have in place any policy for creation of new states. Article 3 empowers Parliament to create new states. But, it is to be understood that such a power has to be exercised according to a policy created for that purpose and not whimsically, selectively or on a case-to- case basis. Arbitrary exercise of authority will not stand judicial scrutiny. It is now too well settled that every state’s action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law.
This is also evident from various pronouncements of the apex court. Be it denial of passport in public interest (Maneka Gandhi) or imposition of President’s rule (SR Bommai) or removal of governors (BP Singhal) or alienation of natural resources (presidential reference under Article 143), the apex court was clear that there should be a policy in place. When it comes to creation of new states, the central government has to act with greater responsibility by coming up with a policy, particularly because the Constitution has not entrusted any role for the State Assembly beyond merely expressing its view. There should be some valid basis like language or ethnicity or backwardness or need to create smaller states. None of this is present in the case of Telangana.
PREMEDITATED: The very objective of bringing in the Right to Information Act is to enable the citizens to know not just the decision of the government in a particular case but also the basis of such a decision. When the Parliament wants the citizens to know the basis for a decision taken by all layers of government, how is it that the Union cabinet took such an important decision of bifurcating one of the biggest states without any basis, that too, by bringing such an important item as a table item before it? On the one hand, the Union government says that Telangana is a long-pending issue and, on the other, it hurriedly brings such an important issue as a table item without allowing the ministers to take a considered decision on such an important issue. This confirms that the whole process is vitiated by premeditation.
It is not as if the Congress party was not aware of the need for a valid basis for creation of new states. The Congress Working Committee had, at its meeting held on October 30, 2000, considered the demands from various regions of the country for separate statehood in detail and decided to refer the matter to another States Reorganisation Commission by passing the following resolution:
“While respecting the report of the first States Reorganisation Commission, the Congress party notes that there are many valid reasons for formation of separate states of Vidarbha and Telangana. However, the reorganisation of existing states raises a large number of issues. The Congress feels that the whole matter could be best addressed by another States Reorganisation Commission to look into all the issues involved”.
DUBIOUS BASIS: Going by the CWC resolution dated July 30, 2013, it appears that it decided to recommend creation of Telangana state because it is a longstanding demand. Why were other longstanding demands such as Vidarbha not taken up? Moreover, can a longstanding demand alone constitute a rational and valid basis for creation of new States? On November 21, 2011, the UP Assembly passed a resolution to split the state into Purvanchal, Paschim Pradesh, Bundelkhand and Awadh Pradesh. In case of Andhra Pradesh, there is no such resolution. It is, therefore, clear that the UPA government has taken the decision to create Telangana in the hope of winning a few additional MP seats, taking advantage of the ongoing agitation for a Telangana state. Such caprice shall never stand judicial review.
(The writer is a member of the political affairs committee of YSR Congress Party)
The Hyderabad state comprised, in addition to Telangana, five districts of Marathwada and three of Hyderabad-Karnataka. The Marathwada region was merged with Maharashtra and the three districts of Hyderabad-Karnataka were merged with Karnataka. About 25 states have been formed in India on linguistic basis since 1956.
Thus, Telangana is not the only region that was demerged from the Hyderabad state and merged with another province to form a new linguistic state. Several other provinces were similarly demerged or merged with other provinces for creation of linguistic states. Thus, there was nothing unusual about Telangana being merged with Andhra for formation of Andhra Pradesh.
NO POLICY: The Union cabinet, which met on October 3, 2013, took the decision to create Telangana state with Hyderabad city included therein. But it has not spelt out the basis for such a major decision. Apparently, the government does not have in place any policy for creation of new states. Article 3 empowers Parliament to create new states. But, it is to be understood that such a power has to be exercised according to a policy created for that purpose and not whimsically, selectively or on a case-to- case basis. Arbitrary exercise of authority will not stand judicial scrutiny. It is now too well settled that every state’s action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law.
This is also evident from various pronouncements of the apex court. Be it denial of passport in public interest (Maneka Gandhi) or imposition of President’s rule (SR Bommai) or removal of governors (BP Singhal) or alienation of natural resources (presidential reference under Article 143), the apex court was clear that there should be a policy in place. When it comes to creation of new states, the central government has to act with greater responsibility by coming up with a policy, particularly because the Constitution has not entrusted any role for the State Assembly beyond merely expressing its view. There should be some valid basis like language or ethnicity or backwardness or need to create smaller states. None of this is present in the case of Telangana.
PREMEDITATED: The very objective of bringing in the Right to Information Act is to enable the citizens to know not just the decision of the government in a particular case but also the basis of such a decision. When the Parliament wants the citizens to know the basis for a decision taken by all layers of government, how is it that the Union cabinet took such an important decision of bifurcating one of the biggest states without any basis, that too, by bringing such an important item as a table item before it? On the one hand, the Union government says that Telangana is a long-pending issue and, on the other, it hurriedly brings such an important issue as a table item without allowing the ministers to take a considered decision on such an important issue. This confirms that the whole process is vitiated by premeditation.
It is not as if the Congress party was not aware of the need for a valid basis for creation of new states. The Congress Working Committee had, at its meeting held on October 30, 2000, considered the demands from various regions of the country for separate statehood in detail and decided to refer the matter to another States Reorganisation Commission by passing the following resolution:
“While respecting the report of the first States Reorganisation Commission, the Congress party notes that there are many valid reasons for formation of separate states of Vidarbha and Telangana. However, the reorganisation of existing states raises a large number of issues. The Congress feels that the whole matter could be best addressed by another States Reorganisation Commission to look into all the issues involved”.
DUBIOUS BASIS: Going by the CWC resolution dated July 30, 2013, it appears that it decided to recommend creation of Telangana state because it is a longstanding demand. Why were other longstanding demands such as Vidarbha not taken up? Moreover, can a longstanding demand alone constitute a rational and valid basis for creation of new States? On November 21, 2011, the UP Assembly passed a resolution to split the state into Purvanchal, Paschim Pradesh, Bundelkhand and Awadh Pradesh. In case of Andhra Pradesh, there is no such resolution. It is, therefore, clear that the UPA government has taken the decision to create Telangana in the hope of winning a few additional MP seats, taking advantage of the ongoing agitation for a Telangana state. Such caprice shall never stand judicial review.
(The writer is a member of the political affairs committee of YSR Congress Party)
Source: The New Indian Express
