Ahead of the 2009 General Elections in India all the major parties in Andhra Pradesh supported Telangana state.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) again announced their policy of having smaller states and will create 2 more states Telangana and Gorkhaland if they win the election.[42] When the BJP was last in power, they created Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarkhand. They suggest smaller states create more competition for investment and are better governed.
Congress Party still says it is committed to Telangana statehood.But it did not create any new states during its rule over the last 5 years, nor did it have a convincing answer to why it could not create Telangana state. Also it claims Muslim minorities are opposed to creation of separate state along with majority people...
Telugu Desam Party(TDP) promised to work for Telangana statehood. Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) joined a Mahakutami(or grand alliance) with TDP and left parties to defeat congress party for denying statehood for Telangana.
Praja Rajyam Party(PRP), newly founded by film star Chiranjeevi, too supports Telangana statehood. Nava Telangana Party merged with PRP after it realized that there is not enough political space for two sub-regional Telangana parties with Telananga statehood as main agenda.
Several political parties, including some Telangana congress leaders, criticized Chief Minister, Y.S. Rajasekahr Reddy (YSR), when he changed his stand from pro-Telangana and gave anti-Telangana statements after the polls.
Congress returned to power both at center and state. TRS and the grand alliance lost the elections in overwhelming fashion.
In the first week of Dec 2009, the TRS president, K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) started a fast-unto-death demanding that the Congress party introduce a Telangana bill in the Parliament. Student organizations, employee unions and various organizations joined the movement.The decline of KCR's health has contributed to a sense of urgency for the central government to take a decision on the issue of Telangana statehood.
Telangana state formation process
On Dec 9th 2009, 11:30 PM, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs, on behalf of the Government of India announced that a resolution in the Andhra Pradesh assembly for the creation of a separate Telangana state will be passed. Mr. Chidambaram also informed that process for the formation of a separate Telangana state will be initiated soon. KCR ending his 11 day fast said from his hospital bed that this a true victory of the people of Telangana..
On December 10, 2009, Indian government has agreed to start the process of forming a separate Telangana. Central government asked Andhra Pradesh state government to pass of a resolution in the legislative assembly(As per article 3 of Constitution, Parliament does not require assembly resolution to create a new state. Its mere formality).
Several members of Andhra Pradesh's legislature submitted their resignations to protest the creation of the new state. As of 11th December atleast 117 legislators and many Members of Parliament had resigned in protest of the Government's decision to carve out a new state of Telangana. Most of this Legislators/MPs' resigned belong to Andhra/Rayalaseema region.
.
Of the three regions of the state, Telangana has the largest area, with 1,14,800 km2 yet much of the land is arid and not nearly as fertile as the agriculturally rich coastal region. The Telangana plateau is drained by two major rivers, theGodavari and the Krishna. The entire region is divided into two main regions namely ghats and peneplains. The surface is dotted with low depressions.
Irrigation
Telangana region Andhra Pradesh is situated in the central stretch of the eastern seaboard of the Indian Peninsula. Deccan plateau is situated at a high altitude in an up-land area. The river Godavari is flowing on the North and the river Krishna is flowing on the South. Apart from the major rivers, there are other small rivers such as Bhima, Dindi, Kinnerasani, Manjeera, Manair, Penganga, Praanahita, and Peddavagu and Taliperu.
Hyderabadi biryani
Centuries of independent existence has given Telangana its own distinctive culture and identity. The Telugu language spoken here has evolved into a new dialect with a liberal mixture of words from Urdu and Marathi. Festivals: Diwali, Dassera, Eid-ul-Fitr and Ugadi are prominent festivals in Telangana. The region celebrates distinctive festivals like Bathukamma, and Bonalu. The other festivals, such as, Deepawali, Holi, Moharram and Vinayaka chaturthi are also celebrated with equal enthusiasm as in northern India. The national festival Sankranti is also celebrated in the beginning of harvest season on 14 January every
The Mulki Rules promulgated by the Nizam of Hyderabad before The merger of that State with India laid down certain Qualifications as to residence in the State for the, purpose of appointment to the State services. After the States Reorganisation Act 1956 the Telangana area of Hyderabad State and the State of Andhra were: combined to form the new State of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents who were officers in :he Department of Industries in Andhra Pradesh and were adversely affected by the Mulki Rules filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the said Rules. The High Court, held these to be invalid. In appeal to this Court by certificate the Questions which arise for decision were : (1) Were r. 1 (b) read with r. 3 of the Mulki Rules and Art. 39 of the Constitution, laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in the territory of India ? (ii) Were they continued it force by Art. 35(b) of the Constitution ? (iii) Did they continue in force after the Constitution of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Reorganisation of States Act, 1956 ? (iv) Did they continue or they stand repealed by s. 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957, notwithstanding that s. 3 of the said Act was declared void in so far as it dealt with Telengana ?
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : i) The words "laws in force in the territory of India" in Art. 35(b) also occur in Art. 372 which continue in force existing laws which existed not only in the Provinces of British India but in all Indian States. It would be remarkable if it were otherwise. In the context of Art. 372 What has to be seen is not whether the State of Hyderabad was part of the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution but whether its territory is included in India after its commencement. The same test applies to the old Provinces or part of Provinces of British India. [569H]
Janardan Reddy v. The State, [1950] S.C.R. 940, distinguished.
(ii) This Court interpreted Art. 16(3) in Narasimha Rao's case to mean that it speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification., It cannot be said that the impugned Mulki Rules Could not be provided for by Parliament under Art. 16(3). They are with respect to the matter referred to in Art 16(3). Article 16(3) confers legislative power on Parliament with respect to matter mentioned therein. It 563
confers no less power than Arts. 245-246 do, read with List I and List III. The impugned rules prescribed requirements as to residence ,he whole of Hyderabad State and therefore are saved and continued in force by Art. 35(b). Merely because certain-other Mulki Rules became void on the commencement of the Constitution the impugned rules could not be said to have also become void because Art. 35(b) expressly saves laws like the impugned rules. Effect Must be given to the intention clearly expressed in Art. 35(b).
[570E]
Narasimha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, [1970] 1 S.C
R. 115, applied.
(iii) The impugned rules continued in force even after the constitution of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Re-organisation of the States Act, 1956.
On the terms of Art 35(b) the only proper question to be asked is 'Has Parliament in exercise of its powers under Art. 35(b), read which Art. 16(3), altered or repealed or amended the impugned rules ?" That this is the proper question follows from the words "notwithstanding anything in the Constitution". This expression equally applies to Art.
35(a) and Art. 35(b). In Art. 35(b) the effect of these words is not only to continue the impugned rules but to continue them until Parliament repeals, amends or alters them. It seems to us that the effect of reorganisation of States made under Arts. 3 and 4 of making Telengana a part of a new State has to be ignored under Art. 35(b); otherwise a fundamental right conferred on persons under Art. 35(b)-it must be remembered that Art., 35(b) is a part of the Chapter on Fundamental Rights-would be liable to be taken away by the reorganisation of States. It cannot be denied that the purpose of reorganisation of States is not to take away fundamental rights. [571C]
(iv) Section 2 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957 Act is not severable from s. 3 which was struck by the Court in Narasimha Rao's case.
It is clear that Parliament would not have enacted s. 2 without s. 3 as far as Telengana is concerned. The whole history of the legislation its object tide and the Preamble to it point to that conclusion. Further. the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1956, substituting Art. 1 for the old also shows that it was intended to give special consideration to the Telengana region. [573G-H]
Principles laid down in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India. [1957] S.C.R. 930. held applicable.
The contention that s. 2 insofar as it dealt with Telengana region cannot be given an independent existence was not acceptable. It is only a matter of drafting and if the Telengana. region had been dealt with separately in a separate act it could without hesitation be held that s. 2 would fall with s. 3. The fact that s. 2 deals with laws and rules in various States would not prevent the separation of the valid portion from the invalid portion. This Court specifically held in Narasimha Rao's case' that s. 3 was bad insofar as it dealt with the Telengana region. Section 2 must also be held to be bad insofar as it dealt with Telengana area. [574B-D].
(v) whether the Mulki Rules were unjust to the respondents was a matter for Parliament to decide. This Court was only concerned with their validity. [574E]
-- www.politicalmanager.blogspot.com http://www.politicalmanager.in/
