EXperts mull on telangana future
Legal eagles differ on possible action by the President over Telangana bill.
Legal experts differ on the possible course of action the President should take after both Houses of Parliament passed the controversial bill dividing the state of Andhra Pradesh to create Telangana.
Noted Constitution expert Rajeev Dhavan said that there were a whole lot of questions which could be raised on the constitutionality of the Bill. The President must refer the matter to the Supreme Court for legal opinion before he gives his assent to the Bill as the matter was bound to have far reaching ramifications for some more future states.
The reference to the Supreme Court would also clear the air on the Attorney General’s opinion that the bill would have required Article 371 (d) of the Constitution to be amended. Secondly, the present case did not fit into the ruling in the Babulal case of 1960 as in this instance the entire state Assembly had rejected the Central draft. It was also a matter where the federal structure of the country was sought to be weakened. Finally, the entire procedure to pass the bill in Parliament was a chaotic procedure, which is certainly not the Constitutional course. The President, if he has reservations, should get correct legal opinion. Eminent lawyer Harish Salve said that the President has no option but to sign the Bill to make it a law. He has no independent powers and if he makes any reference, his action shall become politically controversial. Parties who have strong views against the bill could always approach the Supreme Court for redressal but the President was dutybound to give his ascent. Noted Supreme Court lawyer Dushyant Dave was of the view that the President should immediately dissolve the Andhra Pradesh Assembly after an objective assessment. He must sign the bill as both Houses of Parliament had passed it. There is no legal basis for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court at this stage.
Upendra Baxi, former Delhi University Vice Chancellor and distinguished jurist said that since both Houses of Parliament had passed the bill, it would be unusual for the President to veto it or refer it to the Apex Court. Secondly, the Apex Court was not duty-bound to entertain any reference from the President. He said that the President has very few discretionary powers and is bound by the advice of Council of Ministers. The point about the Constitutionality was raised in his argument by the Leader of Opposition and was discussed and lost in the din. Finally, the attorney general’s opinion is not binding on the government. Any affected party can approach the Apex Court to challenge the passage of the bill and the Supreme Court will hear it in the due course.