Jagan appeals to Prez to keep AP united

Following is the full text of the memorandum submitted to President Pranab Mukherjee by YSRCP chief Sri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy in Hyderabad on Monday appealing to him to keep the state united.

November 5, 2013 

Pranab Mukherjee ji

Excellency President of India                                                                



write to request you to kindly direct the Union Government to immediately
withdraw the decision taken by the Council of Ministers at their Cabinet
Meeting held on 3rd October 2013 to bifurcate India’s first
linguistic state apparently without any valid basis and in complete disregard
to the prevailing conventions and practices which require the Union Government
to initiate action under Article 3 of the Constitution of India for creation of
new states only upon receipt of the request from the state assembly by way of a
resolution or on the basis of recommendation of a Commission or a Committee
constituted exclusively for that purpose. The only Committee that the Union
Government has appointed on the subject of creation of Telangana viz Justice Srikrishna Committee has
recommended in unambiguous terms that Andhra Pradesh is best kept united in the
larger interest of all the three regions of the State.

Union Cabinet which met on 3rd October 2013 took the decision to
create Telangana state with Hyderabad city included therein. They have not
spelt out the basis for such a major decision. Apparently, the Government does
not have in place any policy for creation of new states under Art 3 of the
Constitution of India. It is perplexing as to how, in the absence of any policy
for creation of new states, the Union Government could initiate the process for
creation of Telangana State by bifurcating Andhra Pradesh. 

3 no doubt empowers Parliament to create new States on the reference from the
President. The power vested in the
Central Government under Article.3 of the Constitution of India is only an
enabling power, the exercise of which has to conform to the principles of
rationality, transparency and objectivity and the decision should be
intelligible and must be capable of being applied in the same way in all
similar cases. 

the states that have been created so far under Art 3 of the Constitution in the
country is on the basis of recommendation of a Commission like the SRC or a
Report of a Committee like that of JVP Committee or Dar Committee or Wanchoo
committee or upon receipt of a request from a State assembly. These are the
established conventions. 

the present action of Union Government for creating Telangana state not only
does not conform to any of the established conventions and practices but also
goes against the recommendations of Justice Srikrishna Committee, which
recommended that the best option is to keep the state united. So, the decision
of the Union Government on 3rd October 2013 is arbitrary and is
therefore ultra vires the

Even in the recent Presidential
Reference under Art 143 of the Constitution of India on the powers of Central
Government to alienate the natural resources, the Supreme Court held that they
are disinclined to interfere with the policy making power of the Central
Government; they however observed that they would certainly interfere if there
is no rational policy in place or there are deviations from the Policy, if it
is already in place. 

We respectfully submit the following
for your information and perusal:

It is
relevant to recall that Justice Sarkaria Commission had in their Report
submitted in January 1988 dealt at length on Art 3 of the Constitution of India
and observed at para 2.29.07 that there is no need to amend Art 3 because “It is
noteworthy that these legislations(creating new States) were passed either with
the consent of the States affected, or on the recommendations of a Commission
or Committee set up for the purpose.”

Punchhi Commission appointed by Union
in their detailed 7 Volume Report on Centre-State Relations
submitted on 31st March 2010 has observed in respect of Art 3 as

“4.2.02. The Central Government, in effect,
cannot concede to the demands of regional groups/communities for a separate
State unless such a proposal is received from the State(s) in which these
groups are currently locate

following statement made by Shri L K Advani, the then Union Home Minister of
India in Parliament on 1st August 2000 on the subject of separate
statehood for Vidarbha makes this amply clear.

“In 1953-54, a States Reorganisation
Commission was constituted and Indian States were reorganized on linguistic
basis. It will be in fitness of things if another States Reorganisation
Commission is constituted today. There have been different demands from
different states as well as different regions. The people of Vidarbha raised a
particular demand which is opposed by the people of rest of Maharashtra. We
have taken the line that we can accede to a demand from a particular region
only if due weightage is given to it by passing a resolution to that effect in
the State Legislative Assembly. It does not mean that we will concede
everything passed by the State Assembly but with regard to creation of a State,
the Assembly resolution signifies a general consensus.”

It is
important to note that even Sri P Chidambaram, the then Union Home Minister in
his Statement dealing with the subject of Telangana on 9th December
2009 said that an appropriate resolution will be moved in the state assembly.
His statement is reproduced below:

“The process of forming the
state of Telangana will be initiated. An appropriate resolution will be moved
in the state assembly.”

The issue
of creation of smaller states was discussed during the Seventy-Fourth
Conference of the Presiding Officers of Legislative bodies in the country held
at Bhopal during February 3-4, 2010 with Smt. Meira Kumar, Speaker of Lok Sabha
in the Chair. It was resolved in that conference as follows:

Constitution vests the powers to create new states in Parliament and Parliament
as such may be the best institution to delineate definite parameters and
facilitate a national view in the matter. Parliament, in our view, may be the
best forum to consider as to whether the time is ripe for the constitution of
the second States Reorganisation Commission.’


“The Congress Party recognizes the growing aspiration of
the people of Telangana Region for Statehood. 
There are similar demands from other parts of the country.  The Congress Working Committee, at its
meeting held on 30th October, 2000 considered this issue in proper
perspective and resolved that "while respecting the report of the first
States Reorganization Commission, the Congress Party notes that there are many
valid reasons for formation of separate States in Vidarbha and Telangana.  However, the Reorganization of existing
States raises a large number of issues. 
The Congress Party feels that the whole matter could be best addressed
by another States Reorganization Commission to look into all the issues


 “On the Telangana issue, the Congress Party
pledges to honour the stand taken by the Government on the floor of the House.
The Congress Government has already constituted a Committee of Members of both
the Houses under the Chairmanship of senior Congress leader Sri K. Rosaiah. The
report is awaited.”

It is clear from the above that the
power vested in Parliament under Art 3 of theConstitution is only an
enabling clause, which can be exercised only in accordance with a Policy made
for that purpose. This is what is revealed by the conventions and practices
followed by Union Government in respect of formation 28 states so far. Both the
High powered Judicial Committees viz Justice
Sarkaria Commission and Justice Punchhi Commission have clearly said that there
should be a basis like a Report of a Commission or a State Assembly resolution
as a must for creation of new states; The same was announced as the Union
Government’s policy by Sri L K Advani as the then Union Home Minister. Same
view was also expressed by the Conference of Presiding officers. The only
independent committee appointed by Union Government the Justice Srikrishna Committee
clearly recommended that the state be kept united. It is inexplicable as to why the Union Government did not obtain
the Resolution of the State Assembly for division of the State. What then is the basis for creation of
Telangana state? Atleast, the Congress Manifesto 2004 and 2009 have not made
any blanket promise that Telangana state would be formed.

There is also the issue of Art 371D
which was enacted as 32nd Constitutional Amendment Act 1973. Before
embarking upon creation of new state under Art 3 of the Constitution, Art 371 D
has either to be repealed altogether or apply to both the states. In either
case, under Art 368 of the Constitution of India, two thirds majority is
required. The presumption that immediately after passing a resolution under
Articles 3 & 4 of the Constitution of India, Art 371 D automatically exits
from Constitution is not correct.

It is respectively submitted that if
the Union Government is allowed to pursue with the policy which is being
presently followed by them in respect of creation of Telangana State, it will
not only set an extremely bad precedent but will also spell death knell to
federalism, which is one of the basic features of Indian constitution. If this
is not corrected, any political party at the Centre which enjoys the support of
272 Lok Sabha MPs and at about 126 Rajya Sabha MPs can go on meddling with the borders
of all the states in the country with impunity to suit their own political
considerations. This is certainly not the spirit of the Indian constitution.

Hence, the Union Government’s decision
is without any valid basis and is purely on narrow political considerations and
is therefore unconstitutional. In the light of the above, we request you to
kindly stall the process for bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh state.

With highest regards


                                                                                                                      (Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy)

Back to Top