| Author | Message | ||
Methhanithodugu Megastar Username: Methhanithodugu Post Number: 26251 Registered: 12-2008 Posted From: 117.213.224.197 Rating: N/A |
idi trash ....BJP isthe susi edvaalsinde .....be prepared ......if u want to hide behind the amendments ... States formation is not NEW ,and Since Ambedkars Indian Constitution was first penned there were thousands of Changes to Amendments ...Bottom line ....Hiding is not the Answer ....its not that you can see a solution to telangana issue ... but you cannot understand the Telangana problem....Jobs Water Business share should have been divided based on Population and Social Status [Lowest gets first]and Political Power sharing [telangana Cms ... ys not easy to Ignore that 50yr out of 56yrs by seemandhraites ] until then u will see this movement going for another 1000 Years .... and hope its not violent ....cause after that we will be worst than ASSAM & J&K ..... DB is for leg pulling,info share,timepass dont take all posts to heart/dil pe ..DB is Pressure Release | ||
Politicalobserver Side Hero Username: Politicalobserver Post Number: 5667 Registered: 11-2012 Posted From: 106.207.138.243 Rating: |
Telangana and whether there is any Constitutional amendment necessary & the crisis ! Constitution and what it says! One must know ... Telangana ... Formation of a new state....agitations, movements, discussions, meetings, bandhs, strikes, unrest and endless media discussions (overruling many other burning priorities of people's necessities) .... so on. Let us analyse this in detail... I am making this feature/post here since I am indeed fed up of watching/hearing wrongful, inadequate, incomplete and incompetent arguments being made by many self-acclaimed experts and political men on various panels in the Media who are making useless arguments without knowing the basics and the core methodology that the Constitution lays down. ... "Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States" is stipulated by Article 3 of the Constitution. Therefore, the following must be read carefully... Article 3 has five sub-clauses (a) to (e) .. clearly the sub-clauses 3 (a), (c), (d) and (e) are applicable wherein the (a) formation of a new state, (c) diminishing the area of the state, (d) altering the boundaries of the state and (e) altering the name of the state are concerned. Yes; Parliament may by law can effect & do this. However the sub-clause 3(e) continues to say .. "Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory Explanation II The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory" Analysis in a limited way by the above : (i) No bill can be introduced in the Parliament except on the recommendation of the President .. Article 74 (1) clearly stipulates .."There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice". Therefore, President can do only when the Council of Ministers at the behest of Prime Minister would advise him to act upon Article (3) (ii) The point (i) implies that Union Council must take a decision ... That is the legislature part.. Now the political part.. (iii) The Political party that runs the Government must take the decision.. That means the UPA must decide.. That amounts to Congress must decide first and then have it ratified and approved by other coalition partners of UPA. Then it must get ready for further process in putting up the bill in Parliament (iv) If we read the next lines of the Article (3) (e).. the bill has to be referred to the Legislature of that State,i.e., our AP for expressing views within a stated time-period.. that means there is a clear exercise in the offing that this matter as a bill, being forwarded by Parliament (at the behest of Union Council of Ministers/UPA), must get discussed in AP Assembly too; it doesn't matter whether the outcome of such discussions in AP assembly shall be binding or not on the Parliament. The steps in sequence must continue. Now the logic plays that ...if AP Assembly comes out with a different proposition than what UPA could desire to do, how will UPA proceed further and whether these steps can be done within the available time-frame until next elections in 2014 (given that the next session is very unlikely to have this bill discussed in Parliament, with Food Security Bill taking the highest precedence). Most importantly, it doesn't suffice that only Article 3 is read time and again & the interpretations are being drawn. In the case of Andhra Pradesh, Article 371 (D) must be read equally well since that concerns with "Special Provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh". Article 371(10) makes it amply clear that these provisions won't get overruled by any other Article and shall have effect notwithstanding any other Article. The basic point... (a) Any change of state calls for review or deletion or amendment of 371(D).. and that can't be done unless that is cleared and passed by the Parliament with absolute majority since it is not a normal provision or article; it is clearly an Article for Special Provisions Act of AP. Likewise the list of States in the schedule also calls for an amendment. Summing up the whole ...the conclusions are: (i) First Congress must agree and then UPA must agree (ii) Bill must be placed in the Parliament (iii) The Bill must be referred to Legislative Assembly of AP and must get discussed; the views of Legislative Assembly ( formulated by Speaker of AP Assembly) must be sent to Parliament (iv) Parliament must review the bill together with the constitutional amendments required for Article 371 (D) and the the Schedule of the States in existence. (v) Constitutional amendment must be passed by absolute majority since it is an Article for Special Provisions like what exists for Nagaland, Assam, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and so on. There is no way that this can be compared with those of other Articles or other States wherein bifurcation had happened in the past (vI) Such bills passed by Parliament for separate states under Article (3) and together read with the constitutional amendment bills have to be sent to President; President may still reject at the first instance and seek review of the same by the Union Council once again.. Knowing Sri Pranab Mukherjee's views earlier on this subject (in the case of forming the separate states and formation of small states), such a thing is definite to happen. Therefore, the Union Council has to review (even if it is only procedural) and then resubmit to President. Then the Bill has to be approved by the President.. Friends! all these take time.. Nothing can happen by overnight. Even if Congress wants to make it happen, the logical steps here would consume substantial time. Some politician was stating on TV9 that it would take one week. I don't think such a cruel joke can be made to the people on TV Media and one can get way. The people who listen to them are no fools. Things can only worsen since our politicians, as we know, never have understood to agree with each other and we can expect now that they are likely to do so this time for a change & make some history. We are therefore going through such a tunnel where the light at the end is quite far from visible. Wish all those every best while they are being routed through the discussions about the complexities of Telangana, Royal Telangana, Royal Andhra, Hyderabad as UT, Hyderabad State ... and ever so many possible combinations and wasteful dreams and thoughts... Yes; I do wish the peace in AP. I have nothing personally against this bifurcation of the state nor I am in favour. I do join those who need peace and who advocate harmony and undisturbed coexistence. If Telangana statehood can bring it, let it do so as early as possible. May this wonderful state not burn unnecessarily because of the parochial policies, non-people oriented arguments and divisive mechanisms! May God bless Telangana happen as quickly as possible and make the right sense prevails at all levels; and May God bless such a happening even if He couldn't care about the selfish men around the divisive thoughts and fragmenting methods. Thanks. Commander Prasad YVV, +919663835240 |
