No separate domicile for a State: Supreme Court

State reorganisation laws cannot curtail a citizen's right to reside in any part of country, the Supreme Court Bench said.

Representational image of the Supreme Court of India | Photo Credit: Getty Images

State reorganisation laws cannot curtail a citizen's right to reside and settle in any part of the country, the Supreme Court has held in a judgment.

A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that "there is only one domicile, that is, the domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State".

"Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Every part of every State is an integral and inseverable part of India," Justice Banerjee, who authored the judgment, wrote.

The Bench was dealing with an appeal filed by Telangana against a High Court decision upholding an Animal Husbandry department officer's claim to be posted in Telangana and not Andhra Pradesh post the bifurcation of the State under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act in 2014.

B. Subba Rayadu, the officer concerned, had argued that he was posted in Hyderabad at the time of the bifurcation and should be considered a local officer of Telangana. Besides, his wife is also working in Telangana. The High Court had upheld his case.

"The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines cannot take away from citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of the country. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State government have to be allotted to the two States, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the rules and regulations and by guidelines. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution," the apex court noted.