SC refuses to restrain Centre on Telangana issue
The Supreme Court rejected a plea to restrain Centre from carving out a separate Telanganga State.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected
a plea to restrain Centre from carving out a separate
Telanganga State saying it was "too premature" but sought
response from the AP government and Telangana Rashtra Samiti
over concerns that normal life has been paralysed due to the
"A commission (Justice Srikrishna) has been appointed.
The Central government has not taken a decision this way or
that way. How can we prevent the Union of India from taking a
decision. Your prayer is premature," the court observed.
Besides issuing notices to TRS, which is spearheading the
stir, a bench of justices G S Singhvi and S Mukhopadhaya also
sought replies from the registrar general of the high court
and the state bar council that even judicial work had been
The apex court however, turned down advocate P V
Krishnaiah`s plea seeking the court`s direction to the Centre
to restrain it from carving a new state out of Andhra Pradesh.
Krishnaiah, who moved three PILs, had contended that the
power to carve out a new state under Article 3 of the
Constitution is vested with Parliament and the same cannot be
done without amending Article 371-D which granted certain
benefits of reservation in employment, education and other
benefits to the locals.
The apex court, however, wondered whether "extra-judicial
forces" could bring normal life and court proceedings to a
halt as part of the agitation.
"We would like to examine whether governance can be
brought to a halt by extra-judicial forces. Is it open to the
bar council and advocates to disrupt the proceedings of the
court," the bench queried.
It asked the State Government, Registrar General of the
High Court and the Bar Council to file their affidavits
within 10 weeks.
According to the petitioner, apart from normal life being
paralysed, courts too, except the high court, were not
functioning properly due to the stir and that many government
employees, including police personnel, had joined the stir.
The public interest litigation submitted that the
agitation in the form of `rasta roko`, `rail roko` and
disruption of work at the public sector Singareni Collieries
Limited was causing colossal loss of public money, besides
violating Fundamental Rights of the citizens under Articles 14
(Equality) and 21 (Liberty) of the Constitution.