As some of the legal experts belonging to Telangana and favoring Telangana State say,
1. There should not be any role of the State Assembly when the authority to bifurcate the State is vested within the powers of the Parliament by Article 3 of the Indian Constitution.
2. If the final authority is Assembly, no State can ever be bifurcated in case of minority group demands it and the point to be noted is that the majority group will never demand a bifurcation. If it is to be checked, a proposal to form Andhra from Tamil Nadu was not passed in the Madras Province.
3. The idea of article 3 is that the will of the people of a region to form a separate State be the sole criterion for the Centre to initiate the process of State formation.
4 After the Bill for the bifurcation is passed, the President will refer it to the State Assembly to express its opinion on it in a stipulated time. Again the problem comes what if the Assembly on majority intimates its view against it? That is the reason why the final decision is given to the Parliament.
In the light of above the Assembly may not be a hurdle to the Center once the Bill of Bifurcation is passed in the Parliament-
But Article 371 D can be!
Article 371 D is the 32nd amendment of the Constitution giving special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
As former MP and Politburo member of TRS party B.Vinod Kumar opines, the amendment is only a temporary, transitional and special provision it cannot override the powers or the Parliament given by Article 3.
He suggests that the remedy is to remove the word “Andhra Pradesh” from it or add “Telangana” in it by an amendment through Parliament to make the path of bifurcation clear.
-SriJa
