Though the election results will be announced on May 16, the newly-elected legislators in the united Andhra Pradesh will have to wait to take oath as legislators.
The two successor States as part of the State reorganisation, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, will come into effect on the appointed day June 2. Only after the successor States come into existence, the legislators of respective States will elect the respective leaders to stake claim to form the government. Then the governments will convene the legislatures to administer the oath, sources said.
Telugu Desam president N. Chandrababu Naidu on the other day said there was no clarity on the oath-taking schedule with some stating that legislators will first take oath in the United State and then subsequently after the appointed day, once again as the legislators of respective States.
Governor’s discretionHowever, informed sources ruled out two-time oath taking by MLAs and that new MLAs will have to wait till the two States are in place after the appointed day.
Sources said that after the Chief Electoral Officer submits the list of elected representatives to the Governor, he will constitute the House of united Andhra Pradesh. Technically the leader of the single largest party in the united AP legislature can even stake claim to be the Chief Minster till the appointed day when the two successor States will come into existence. However, it will depend on the discretion of the Governor, they added.
Another notification will be issued for bifurcation of the new united Andhra Pradesh legislature into legislatures of two successor States, they added.
Counting arrangementsMeanwhile, the State Election Commission has made arrangements for the counting of votes for urban local bodies on May 12 and for the panchayat raj bodies, zilla and mandal parishad territorial constituencies on May 13.
Though political parties have been demanding that the counting of votes for local bodies should be taken up after the announcement of Assembly and Lok Sabha results, the SEC sources said that it was not a justifiable demand.