(An
article about state bifurcation without consent of state legislature)The
decision to divide Andhra Pradesh raises important questions about federalism
and the nation’s future. This is the first time in India that a state is
sought to be divided without the consent of the State legislature.All
major federal democracies have in their Constitutions the provision that a
state cannot be divided or merged with another state without its prior consent.
This is the essence of federalism.
There
were several kinds of States — Parts A, B and C — and there was need to
reorganise all states and integrate the 552 princely states. If the consent of
every State or Unit was a precondition to altering the boundary, reorganisation
would have become an excruciatingly difficult exercise.
Article 3
Consequently, the final text of Article 3 as promulgated provided for
the President’s recommendation and ascertaining the views of the
state concerned both with respect to the proposal to introduce the Bill and
with respect to the provisions thereof. Articles
3 & 4 in their present form are enabling provisions empowering Parliament
to act in an exceptional situation when national interest warrants it, or to
settle marginal boundary disputes between states .
Previous Cases:
Only
in the case of Punjab, there was no legislature at the time of dividing the
State in 1966. But there was a broad consensus among stakeholders and no
opposition.
The
1956 reorganisation was based on the fundamental principle of language; there
was broad national consensus on the issue.
Even
after 1987, in every case of state formation, the consent of the state
legislature was obtained. The
procedure was observed in creating Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh in
2000.
Andhra
Pradesh was formed with the prior consent of the Andhra State Legislature, and
the Hyderabad State Legislature. When two popular movements for the state’s
division were launched in the three regions — in Telangana in 1969-70, and in
Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in 1972-73 — the Union government encouraged all
regions to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
What Ambedkar said ?
Dr.
Ambedkar said in his reply to the debate in the Constituent Assembly on states’
rights: “The… charge is that the Centre has been given the power to override
the States. This charge must be admitted. But before condemning the
Constitution for containing such overriding powers, certain considerations must
be borne in mind. The first is that these overriding powers do not form the
normal feature of the Constitution. Their use and operation are expressly
confined to emergencies only”.
Effect of 12th F.C:
Since
the report of the Tenth Finance Commission, there has been greater transparency
in devolution: most of the tax revenues of the Union are being treated as the
divisible pool, and a fixed proportion of it is shared with states as decided
by the Finance Commission. States are now more in control of their economic
future.
Conclusion
The
determined efforts of the Union government and its oft-repeated declarations
that Andhra Pradesh will be divided irrespective of the legislature’s views,
pose a grave danger to federalism and unity.
Prime
Minister is the final defender of the Constitution and federalism along with
the Supreme Court. This is therefore a fit case where the President should
exercise his constitutional duty independently before recommending introduction
of any Bill to divide the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(The
writer is president of the Lok Satta Party J.P)
