Ahead of an all-party meeting here on Tuesday, The Union government is examining a proposal to seek Presidential reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution to find a legal solution to the demand for a Telangana State.
In its perception, the issue is not only a political problem but also a legal one that could not be decided by the government alone. As part of the consultation process, the Centre is likely to discuss this proposal at Tuesday’s meeting with eight recognised political parties and take their views.
The Tuesday meeting follows Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s statement on December 23, 2009. He had said: “A large number of political parties are divided on the Telangana issue. There is need to hold wide-ranging consultations with all political parties and groups in the State. The Government of India will take steps to involve all concerned in the process.”
The Centre obtained legal opinion from a senior law officer whether the Telangana demand could be considered afresh. The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) had rejected such request in 1955 and many States were formed on the basis of the language spoken in the region, it was pointed out.
The legal opinion was that as Andhra Pradesh was formed as a Telugu-speaking State, dividing it into two or three States might pose several legal questions viz., whether the State could be further divided when no new facts had emerged except for the fact that some political parties were resorting to agitations in support of their demand.
The legal opinion pointed out that the SRC report, among other things, went into the problems of Telangana and Andhra regions and the arguments for and against the merger of two regions and came to the conclusion that there was no need for further division of Andhra Pradesh.
Can there be a further subdivision of the State is the crucial question that is likely to be put forth by the President to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion.
Article 143 of the Constitution says: “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of a such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he [or she] may refer the question to that court for consideration and the court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.”
The SRC report says, “The advantages of a larger Andhra State, including Telangana, are that it will bring into existence a State of about 32 million with a considerable hinterland, with large water and power resources, adequate mineral wealth and valuable raw materials.
This will also solve the difficult and vexing problem of finding a permanent capital for Andhra, the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad are very well suited to be the capital of Vishalandhra. It seems to us, therefore, that there is much to be said for the formation of the larger State and nothing should be done to impede the realisation of this goal.”
Correction
SRC Report (1955) did not reject Telangana demand: The Hindu front-page report (January 5, 2010) said that “… the States Reorganisation Commission had rejected such a request in 1955… and came to the conclusion that there was no need for further division of Andhra Pradesh.” Many readers said that it was not so. The readers are right. The correspondent has erred.
The States Reorganisation Commission, which consisted of Hon. Fazal Ali, K.M. Panikker and H.M. Kunzru, did not reject the demand for a separate Telangana State.
Paragraph 382 of the report said: “It seems to us, therefore, that there is much to be said for the formation of the larger State and that nothing should be done to impede the realisation of this goal. At the same time, we have to take note of the important fact that, while opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallise itself. Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future.”
Paragraph 386 said: “After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State, with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two thirds majority of the legislature of the residuary Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification.”
