Centre or Governor to rule joint capital

Hyderabad: AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh on Sunday queered the pitch somewhat, stating that the legislation on Telangana statehood will be referred to the AP Assembly twice for approval. In remarks that he did not explain, Singh told reporters in New Delhi that Hyderabad would not be made a Union Territory but would be administered either by the Governor or by the Union government during its 10 years as joint capital. He said that whoever is registered as a voter in Hyderabad will be considered as a local. Asked about his statement, made before the Union Cabinet’s October 3 decision on state bifurcation, that the Telangana issue would be referred to the AP Assembly twice, he said, “Yes, the GoM, after completing the task, will send their report to the President, who will in turn send it to the AP Assembly for passing the Telangana resolution. Thereafter the Telangana Bill will be referred to the Assembly by the President for expressing its views on it.” Ministers to go to HC, SC Seemandhra leaders have lost the hope that they can force Congress leadership and the Centre into a rethink on the state bifurcation issue. They are looking at fighting out the issue legally by approaching the apex court. Not only leaders of the Congress, even those belonging to other political parties are actively involved in preparing writ petitions and special leave petitions and have engaged eminent advocates and constitutional experts for the purpose. YSR Congress leader Raghu Ramakrishna Raju has already filed a petition on the matter. YSRC president Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy on Saturday declared that he would fight it out legally. Vijayawada Congress MP Lagadapati Rajagopal has already announced his decision to approach the apex court on the issue. It is reliably learnt that a Seemandhra minister has obtained opinion from an eminent constitutional expert by spending several lakhs of rupees for the purpose. Another Congress MP spent a few lakhs of rupees to obtain opinion on the grounds to challenge the Union government decision on bifurcation. Sources said that the Seemandhra leaders are mainly relying on three important Articles of the Constitution — Articles 3, 4 and 371 (D), (E). They wanted to represent to the court that the “opinion expressed” by the State Legislature as per Article 3 on the bifurcation Bill that going to be referred by the President of India should be considered as final, and not that of Parliament. Article 3 does not say that ‘expression of opinion’ by the state Legislature is by voting only. It is also not mentioned that Parliament can take decision on the bifurcation of a state, even if the Legislature’s opinion is otherwise. Similarly, Article 371 (D), (E), that creates the zonal system in the state, was inserted in the Seventh Schedule and should either be repealed or amended simultaneously with the bifurcation Bill. This requires a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368. If there was no Article 371(D), (E), bifurcation would have been a simple affair with Parliament approving it with a simple majority. Since repeal or amendment of Article 371(D), (E) requires a special majority in Parlia-ment, sources said it is not going to be easy for the Centre. “Since we have no other way, we have now decided to file petitions in different courts to seek relief so as to stall the bifurcation process. It is our right to seek legal remedy,” said a key leader in the state Congress who is vocally dissenting the party decision to divide the state.