SC to Hear PIL Against AP Bifurcation on Feb 7

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a PIL seeking to restrain the Centre from introducing a bill in Parliament for the creation of Telangana state.

Published: 04th February 2014 08:16 AM  |   Last Updated: 04th February 2014 08:16 AM   |  A+A-

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a PIL seeking to restrain the Centre from introducing a bill in Parliament for the creation of Telangana state.

A bench headed by chief justice P Sathasivam listed the case for hearing on February 7, when it will look into whether the bill can be introduced in Parliament after being rejected by Andhra Pradesh Assembly.

Petitioner ML Sharma, an advocate, contended, “Within the provision of Article 3, the President cannot recommend the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation  Bill, 2013, to be introduced in Parliament contrary to the wish/resolution of the Assembly.”

Bifurcation of a state affects the life and liberty of the residents of the state and it must be stopped, he said.

“Despite the defeat of the bill in the Assembly, the present executive, holding power in hand, is bent upon introducing it in the last Parliamentary session this month, when the election notification is expected for the Lok Sabha polls, which are due in April/May,” he said.

Former MLA Adusumilli Jayaprakash and BJP member Raghurama Krishna Raju too filed petitions in the Supreme Court on Monday against AP bifurcation. Four other such petitions are already pending before the apex court. Chief minister N Kiran Kumar Reddy is also likely to move the SC in a couple of days.

Meanwhile, in Hyderabad, a division bench of High Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions to the Centre not to introduce the AP Reorganisation Bill in Parliament.

Petitioner GV Rao, convenor of the Common Man Forum, contended that the bill was “incomplete and insufficent” as it was not accompanied by statement of objects and reasons, financial memorandum etc.

Chief justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta said the Supreme Court or the High Court would intervene only if the petitioner challenges lapses, if any, in the procedure adopted by the government. As for the alleged deficiencies in the bill, the judge said it is the exclusive domain of the Legislature.

The bench closed the case by terming it as premature.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp