Though it does not require a Constitution Amendment to carve out ‘Telangana’, it will become essential for converting a part of Andhra Pradesh into Union Territory. If the center is considering according Union Territory status to Hyderabad as one alternative among various options to address the Telangana issue, then it would certainly require amendment to the Constitution. Creating an Autonomous Council for Telangana region also requires the amendment to the Constitution. The Telangana aspirants got disappointed again with the talk of ‘need for amendment of the Constitution’ to solve the Telangana tangle. Latest comments of Digvijan Singh in a PTI interview has raised doubts about possibility of further delay in taking an acceptable decision.
Article 4 is very specific about non-requirement of Constitutional Amendment to carve out new state from out of existing states. Article 3 explains that a bill recommended by the President will be enough to create a new state and such a bill if passed by both the houses of Parliament, will automatically affect the changes in the Schedule listing out the states,their area, boundaries and names, without necessitating amendment. Sub Article 2 of Article 4 also says that such a Bill passed by the Parliament though affects the changes in names of the States within the schedule of Constitution, shall not be considered as amendment to the Constitution.
Substantive part of Article 3 and its proviso contain an expression ‘state’. But the meaning of the ‘state’ was further explained in an ‘explanation’ attached to Article 3. It says ‘in clauses (a) to (e) ‘state’ includes a Union Territory, but the proviso ‘state’ does not include Union Territory. It means the Constitution amendment is not required for creating a new state our existing states and union territories, but to create a new Union Territory an amendment will be required. Parliament has power to convert a UT into a state but unless constitution is amended it cannot convert existing state to convert into Union Territory.
Interpreting the latest statement of Digvijay Singh on evening of July 11th based on what was reported by media may not give accurate inference. On one hand he says the decision would not be delayed and on the other he adds that they need to consult the UPA partners and opposition before final decision. It is difficult to say beforehand whether Digvijay wanted the people to keep guessing, or intending to reduce the pressures from different corners or really considering options beyond separate Telangana.
If Telangana is carved out, Article 371D becomes redundant and needs to be removed by an amendment to the Constitution. However, 371D is such a powerless article which says the President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provides some equitable opportunities. The successive Governments in Center and AP have rendered this article just an appendage without any functional value. The political rulers exhibited scant disregard to this Article and powers of the President, by passing GOs to remove that effect.
(About the Writer: Madabhushi Sridhar is a Professor and Head of Center for Media Law and Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. )
