A p reorganisation bill related
TR Madhavan
(Querist) 27 January 2014
This query is : Resolved
As the A P State Reorganisation bill found incomprehensive one to reject the same notice has been given under rule 77 by the Chief Minister, some of the cabinet colleagues countered it as they not been consulted it should not be taken up as given by the government. Speaker has earlier during the ongoing session rejected notice under same rule given by another party. One more MLA has suggested extension of the tenure of the existing MLAs for two years after the division, to enable increase assembly constituencies and completion of delimitation process.
Clarification sought is
If the bill is in comprehensive should it be treated as a draft one and the same can be rejected by the assembly?
When the members have sought several information with related to the bill, is it the duty or not of the Union Government to furnish the same to complete the process?
When the speaker once rejected the notice given under the same, should he reject the new notices also?
Should delimitation of constituencies as per reserved population etc process be completed before or after the division of the states?
Hope, the clarification will remove the confusions from minds of young woters of India.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 28 January 2014
First of all the proposed division is only get political mileage. All the parties are playing to gain mileage but not in the interest of the people of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Division of State is very sensitive matter. There will be two parties and to get the consensus is very difficult. You can not ignore the minority and go only by majority. If it the case the suffering minority continue to suffer at the will of majority. At the same time, majority views can not be ignored.
As regards AP State Reorganisation Bill, the UPA Government is heading for bifurcation without consulting the aggrieved parties.
1. CWC announcement is a Political party announcement. The Central Govt.should have taken the other political parties before coming to a conclusion. Its argument that they have already consulted the parties earlier is not proper. There is lot of gap between earlier consultations and CWC announcement. How the UPA Government can seek the opinion of other parties without expressing the opinion of UPA parties?.
2. How can the Home Ministry place such an important draft bill as table item before the Cabinet?
3. The Anthony committee sought the opinion of people through e-mails. It is a big joke. They did not find time to visit the State and obtain the public opinion. But the Government wish to push through the bill within no time.
4. The Srikrishna Committee report is not placed before the Parliament. The Home Ministry says, it has taken this report into account while preparing the bill. Crores of rupees of public money is spent on this committee. It was not presented to the parliament.
5. The draft bill sent for discussion does not contain the aims of the bill; financial implications, resource mobilization etc. Mere promises will not give any benefit. This Government may go in few months. When the resources are not specified, how the new government will implement these promises?
Regarding your specific queries:
1. The Central Govt. itself is proclaiming that it is not complete bill and they will submit all the information to the parliament while introducing the bill. In such case what opinion the State Assembly will express in the absence of information. A total/complete bill which is going to be introduced in Parliament should be referred to the State Assembly for its opinion.
2. Yes, it is the duty of any public servant to provide such information. It is surprising, that the Government has violated its own Act viz., RTI Act by expressing its inability to supply the required information.
3, Not necessarily. He can have a fresh look especially as the notice is now given by none else than the Chief Minister of the State.
4. Not ncessarily. The Government can find a via-media to this problem. They can even include a special clause in the Bill itself regarding this issue.
Unfortunately, the part of the State wherein the present Capital Hyderabad is situated, is advocating the division. In such case the residual State issues should be discussed thread-bare and proper solutions should be found in consultation with all forums representing the citizens before going head with the Bill. Elections will come and go; Government will emerge/perish; people's interest is important in a democracy. If the Government ignores people, there is no democracy at all. It will have a very bad effect on the younger generation.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 28 January 2014
Well advised by the expert on this sensitive issue.
M V Gupta
(Expert) 01 February 2014
The haste with which the Center is proposing to table a half cooked Bill will lead to longstanding disputes between the two regions. When the large part of the state is opposed to the bifurcation of the state, Center's stand that they do not care for the majority of the people is totally undemocratic and deserves all round condemnation. Sri Krishna Commission report, as reported in the press, rejected the demand for separation on the ground that Telangana's development was ignored by the successive Govts. If this basic ground with which the agitation was started was found to be baseless and contrary to facts, how the Center has decided to go ahead with the bifurcation, is some thing that is baffling. Last but not least, the propriety of the center's efforts to push through the Bill when the the Govt itself will lay down its office and general elections are round the corner is questionable?
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 01 February 2014
My sincere thanks to all experts who supported my views.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 28 January 2014
