Hyderabad: AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh said on Thursday that the creation of the state of Telangana would need a Constitutional amendment, sparking a fresh debate on the eve of the Congress Core Committee’s crucial meeting on Friday to decide on the issue.
While votaries of Telangana insist that creation of Telangana does not require a Constitutional amendment — it was not needed to create the states of Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand — there does appear to be more to it than that.
If Singh’s line of argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the measure to create Telangana would have to be passed by a two-third majority by Parliament, and should be ratified by at least half the states of India.
In normal circumstances, the formation of new states is governed by Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution.
Article 2 deals with ‘Admission or establishment of new states’; Article 3 with ‘Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states’.
Nod of 50% states needed
Article 4 of the Constitution deals with ‘Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 provide for the amendment of First and Fourth Schedules (of the Constitution) and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters.’
Article 4 (2) states: ‘No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.’ And Article 368 empowers Parliament to make amendments to the Constitution.
This made it easy for the NDA government to create the three new states from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. But Telangana faces a peculiar situation.
After the two agitations, one in 1969 for Telangana state, and another in 1972 for pro-Andhra protagonists, the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had brought in the 32nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, by inserting new Articles, 371 (D) and 371 (E) under the head ‘Special provisions with respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh.’
This was done to bring equitable opportunities and facilities to people belonging to different parts of the state for public employment and education and establishment of a Central University in Andhra Pradesh.
When the 32nd Amendment was adopted in Parliament, it was duly inserted in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which deals with Union, State and Concurrent Lists.
The creation of Telangana may impinge on the Seventh Schedule. And that has created the problem.
Article 368 also says that any measure that seeks to make any changes in the Seventh Schedule requires to be adopted by a ‘special majority’.
This means that the Bill has to be passed in each House by a majority of the total membership of that House, and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members of that House present and voting.
Not only that. Article also says the amendment must be ratified by the legislatures of not less than one half of all the states in India by a resolution to that effect.
In this background, the UPA government, which is struggling to keep its simple majority in Parliament, will have to think twice before making a constitutional amendment as it requires a special majority, and also 50 per cent of legislatures in the country need to approve the same.This means that unless there is a consensus on the issue at national level, it will not be possible to get both the constitutional amendment and approval of 50 per cent of legislatures for the same.