By: Madabhushi Sridhar
It is ridiculous and unconstitutional for Ghulam Nabi Azad and others to ask for ‘consensus’ to carve out Telangana State. Insisting on consensus is nothing but denial of Telangana. Whether it is PM or Home Minister, considering consensus as a requirement for formation of separate State of Telangana is constitutionally wrong and politically misleading the people. If consensus is a requirement, not only Telangana but no demand for a new State can be realized.
Rich, exploitative and anti-Telangana interests will never accept formation of separate Telangana. Most of the so- called integrationists are not in fact favouring integration but they want continued exploitation of the riches of Telangana at the cost of Telangana people. Unfortunately in current Indian democratic hierarchy, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister do not have any power. But a person like Sonia Gandhi or any member of coterie who can whisper in her ear and change her mind are the real rulers of this country.
Constitutionally speaking, India is an indestructible union of destructible States. Whether Telangana should be separated from Andhra Pradesh is totally within the hands of the rulers at the Centre. Though it is a constitutionally acceptable demand, it requires a decision by a political executive which is in command at Delhi.
As per Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, admitting new States into India is different from reorganizing existing States. If a new State (for example, Portuguese and French territories were taken over by India as Goa, Daman Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Pondicherry) has to be included into the Union of India, an amendment to the Constitution is essential, whereas for carving out a new State from out of an existing State or states, approval for a Bill by both the Houses of Parliament with simple majority is enough.
Article 3 gives final power to Central Political Executive and Central Legislature, i.e., Parliament, and absolutely no role is prescribed for the State Government, State people and State legislature. The Constitution prescribed that the concerned State Assembly be consulted before borders of that State are reformulated. Here again consultation does not mean consent of the State, as specifically decided by the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate case.
Constitution-makers intended to give an opportunity to the State legislature to express its views, within the time allowed, on the proposals contained in the Bill. Even if the State legislature opposes, it is not binding on the Parliament. Furthermore, if a Bill has once been referred to the State Legislature, it can be later amended by the Parliament without fresh reference to the State legislature. The reference by President can happen only when the Government decides to recommend President to refer a Bill. If a State resolves in the legislature to carve out a State it may not be a legal requirement but it could form the basis for Union Cabinet’s advice to President.
Some people have criticized that the Centre should have been not vested with such a high power of altering boundaries of States which would affect the federal character of our Constitution. These points were thoroughly discussed; they are part of the records of the Constituent Assembly debates.
When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. This means if the concerned State opposes, a part of it can never be carved out as separate State.
Opposing it and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, K Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realizes the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory, either for forming a new province or for joining an adjacent State, unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. I cannot understand what he means by “originating.”
“Take the case of Madras Province, for instance. The Andhras want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province….”
Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form. It is the constitutional intent that the will of the people of a region to form a separate State be the sole criterion for the Centre to initiate the process of State formation. This is the constitutional benchmark for creating a new State for a region, as amply demonstrated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly and as reflected in the current phraseology of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.
Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, as chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, explained the position as to “Federation of States” as: “… that though India was to be a federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a federation and that the federation not being the result of an agreement, no State has the right to secede from it. The federation is a union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source.”
The proviso of Article 3 makes it compulsory on the part of the President to refer the Bill to the legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
Keeping in view the need for formation of new States, an enabling provision giving power to the Parliament was incorporated in Article 3. For this purpose the Constitution provided a simple and easy process for ‘reorganizing’ a new State. Fifth Amendment to Constitution amended Article 3 which enables the President to give certain time to an Assembly to give its opinion. Before that time expires the bill cannot be introduced in the Parliament.
The purpose of giving such power to Union is to safeguard a set of people from dominant exploitation of remaining majority. In the absence of such a power to Union, formation of Visaalandhra itself in 1956 would have remained a dream of Potti Sriramulu, as a composite State of Madras was opposed the separation of Telugu units from its territory.
If the desire of people is to be within Indian Union, but as a separate State, that might even lead to separatist agitation. Internal rearrangement of States was considered a better preposition than seeking going out of the Union. Telangana people should realize that opportunists are halting the process and they should manifest their strong will for a separate State unmindful of treacherous leaders.
—
The writer is Professor and Coordinator, Center for Media Law and Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad: sridharnalsar@gmail.com
—
[From The Hans India]