From: Dt:06-09-2013 DARBHA R.M.S.PHANI, Tanuku. M.A., M.Phil.,M.Ed.,BL., H.No.33-8-30, Kanchirajuvari Street, TANUKU – 534 211. West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh. Most Hnoured Sirs, In the diminishing and sorrowful state of Chaotic affairs of Politically and constitutionally imminent emergence of bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, with a saddened heart just like you making an attempt to bring following submissions to your kind perusal and necessary initiative to keep the integrated Andhra Pradesh. In the interest of totality of public opinion. 1. The bone of contention that ostensibly the presumed impression of political as well as the media reports that some people are heralding the concept that the failure to pass a bill pertaining to bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh will suffice to preclude the process which is not sound of common prudence and a simple understanding of constitution of India which negates the same. It is relevant to extract the Indian constitution of India, art-3 for ready reference. Central Government Act Article 3 in The Constitution Of India 1949 3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States: Parliament may by law (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State; Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that 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 Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory Explanation II The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory 2. A bare perusal of the said above article speaks of the following steps mandatory to form a new state in india. i. A Bill on a New state has to be recommended by the President. In India it is usually the cabinet which request the President to do that. ii. Article 3 makes it clear that the parliament is sole authority on making a decision on a new state. iii. President refers to bill to the state assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time. iv. Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of the State Assembly. v. If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the Bill could be introduced in the parliament after the expiry of the specified period. 3. The canvassed object it appears in the political circle according to media Reports if the formation of new state Bill is defeated in assembly it is enough valid ingredient to stop the process of new formation of state which is fallacious on two grounds viz. (i) Political (2) Constitution. POLITICAL : In the light of the statement made by Hon’ble Digvijay Singhji on the fateful day of announcement of bifurcation of state it is categorically expressed by Singhji that the bifurcation bill need not get a positive assent in the assembly in other wards even the defeat of the bifurcation bill will not be a restraint to commence the process of bifurcation and the political will is amply clear that assembly is an instrument to begin the process of bifurcation. Hence the onus lies on the persons who proclaim that the defeat of bill puts a stigma on the process of bifurcation how they justify the said statement in the absence of assurance by the highcommand that the process will be stopped if the bill is defeated in the assembly without touching the vires of the constitution. 2. It appears that it is a political modus operandi as asserted by some reputed politicians that unless there is consensus among political parties and the defeat of Bill in the assembly paves way to stop the bifurcation unfortunately which is lacking logic rationale and the sanction of law. Therefore how a political will gathers to accelerate the process of bifurcation will be stopped by defeating the bill is an answerable question in the public life. CONSTITUTION: The reading of the article-3 appears to mandate the process of conveyance of assembly irrespective of the approval or disapproval of bifurcation of the state. It is also mentioned that the parliament is the sole authority to bifurcate the state and conveyance of assembly is an empty formality to carry the process of bifurcation. Hence it is a debatable question when it is allowed to convey the assembly how it immunes the process of bifurcation of State. Therefore in lucid terms we can understand the conveyance of assembly itself accelerates the process of bifurcation and those who wish to see the integrated state of Andhra Pradesh it is incumbent on the politician to think over the conveyance of assembly at initio otherwise the political will may be a ground for debate for suspicion . 2. To my understanding the debate in the assembly can place the views on record in parliamentary history but the views nor the defeat of the bill will in anyway hinder the process of the bifurcation. So, it is to be explained how the views expressed even in the event of defeat of the bill will vanish the bifurcation of the state when the constitution says the views so expressed need not be taken to cognizance in the process of bifurcation. So the irresistible conclusion that can be inferred from the constitution that the views will be taken into consideration is a constitutional myth and pre-supposes that it is a hidden arrangement and agreement to vibrate the process of bifurcation. Hence the debate in assembly to voice dissent the bifurcation of state is only to appease the instincts of the individual but not for the paramount consideration of unique united Andhra Pradesh and I feel personally sorry to pronounce such an idea. 4. Hence it is humbly submitted that both M.L.A’s and M.P’s of Seemandhra should come with a pragmatic solution about their continuance in the offices. 5.For the above said two reasons and the other reasons mentioned herein it is humbly represented to come with legal antecedent and with constitutional sanction how the placing of bill of bifurcation in the assembly will be a prudent act in the eye of law and politics and the same is subject to strict proof and explanation to the public at large. ****
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:14:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015