In a new twist to the dispute on the Belgaum region between Karnataka and Maharashtra, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the latter to amend its original suit claiming the right over 800 Marathi-speaking villages of the area.
The amendment would allow Maharashtra to incorporate in its 2004 suit a challenge to the validity of the State Reorganisation Act (SRA), 1956, “omitted” from the original petition as the state then only had sought a decree for transfer of these villages.
A bench of Justices J.M. Panchal and A.K. Patnaik allowed Maharasthra to amend its suit after its counsel Harish Salve said though the state had subsequently filed an application to challenge the validity of the State Reorganisation Act, incorporation of the same in the original petition has now become necessary in the wake of the latest affidavit of the Centre.
Stung by the Centre’s July 6 affidavit, Maharashtra rushed the top court with a plea for the amendment as the state government had come under pressure from the Opposition parties in the state.
The earlier application challenging the State Reorganisation Act provisions was filed by Maharashtra only after the Centre had responded to the original suit of 2004, rejecting the demand for transfer of the disputed villages.
The Centre had taken a stand that States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) had already adjudicated upon the matter in favour of Karnataka.
The Centre’s latest affidavit of July 6 had, in fact, came in response to this application of the Maharasthra government.
In the wake of the July 6 affidavit of the Centre, Maharasthra’s counsel have advised the state to amend its suit altogether in a bid to make its case rather stronger by questioning the validity of the SRA itself regarding its applicability to Maharashtra and Karnataka.
In its latest affidavit of Union government said the SRA and the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, had “fully and finally” settled the Belgaum issue and there was no scope for reopening it merely on the grounds of the language.
“Both Parliament and Union of India had considered all relevant facts while considering the State Reorganisation Bill, 1956 and Bombay Organisation Bill, 1960 and decided that which of the villages, talukas, municipal areas and towns, were to be included in the concerned states,” the affidavit said.
“It is submitted that language of people has been one of the criteria but not the sole criterion for inclusion of the hilly area i.e. the villages, talukas and municipal areas in a state,” the affidavit stated.