The row over the creation of Telangana State is expected to throw up an interesting Constitutional debate, with legal experts differing over the options available to the President if the Andhra Pradesh Assembly rejects the Bill.
The situation is turning grim with Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy seeking extension of the deadline beyond January 30 for discussing and returning the Telangana Bill.
Though the Chief Minister did not specify the time sought from President Pranab Mukherjee, sources close to him said an additional three weeks were sought by the State. The President initially gave time till January 23 to the State legislature to discuss the AP Reorganisation Bill, 2013 and return it, but subsequently extended the deadline till January 30.
Under the process laid down for creation of a new State, provided under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President had forwarded the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill 2013
to the State Assembly for seeking its view.
The proviso to Article 3 lays down two conditions. One, that the Bill shall be introduced in the Assembly on the recommendation of the President. And second, where the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, it has to be referred by the President to the legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon.
Thus, the procedure under the Constitution requires the President to essentially seek the consent of the State Assembly. However, there is no legal or constitutional clarity in a situation when the Bill is either rejected or not returned to the President.
legal experts agree there is ambiguity in case of such an eventuality. Constitutional expert and noted jurist Rajeev Dhavan terms it a “serious situation” if the State Assembly was to reject the Parliament’s Bill altogether.
“Under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President allows the State Assembly to give its response on the Bill in a time-bound manner. If it completely rejects the proposed Bill and the Union Government does not do anything about it, then it creates a serious situation.”
He cited a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the Babulal Parate v State of Bombay (1960 SCR (1) 605) case where the court addressed a similar situation when the State was opposed to Central action to bifurcate Maharashtra.
“There is nothing in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State legislature,” the 1960 decision said. Dhavan explained that though this decision allowed the Centre to override minor objections posed by the State, it would not be appropriate to apply it to an event where the State Assembly rejected the entire Bill.
The answer, in his view, required the matter to be referred by the President to the Supreme Court. However, eminent lawyer PP Rao differed with this view. According to him, the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court is a call taken by the Centre and not by the President.
Citing the logic behind the 1960 decision, he said the President could disregard the opinion of the Assembly.
In his view, the proviso to Article 3 only requires the view of the State to be taken. “He (President) is not legally bound by the opinion of the Assembly,” Rao said.
In the same breath, he added, “Propriety demands that he must persuade the Government to reconsider the Bill on the objections raised by the Assembly.”
