Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

No Seperate Domicile For States ; State Reorganization Cannot Take Away Fundamental Right Of Indian Citizens To Reside & Settle In Any Part Of Country: Supreme Court

Ashok KM
15 Sep 2022 4:00 AM GMT
No Seperate Domicile For States ; State Reorganization Cannot Take Away Fundamental Right Of Indian Citizens To Reside & Settle In Any Part Of Country: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.B. Subba Rayadu held the State Cadre post of Joint Director­ Class A...

The Supreme Court observed that there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.

The bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed that State Reorganization laws cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.

B. Subba Rayadu held the State Cadre post of Joint Director­ Class A in the Animal Husbandry Department of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. B. Shanthabai, his wife, was also a State Government employee working as Assistant Registrar in the same State. Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 bifurcated the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States­ the new State of Telangana and the residue state of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 2nd June 2014. Rayadu opted for allocation to the State of Telangana. However, he was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh tentatively against which he made a representation that he be considered a local candidate of the State of Telangana. Later, the High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, allowed the Writ Petitions filed by him. Challenging this, the State approached the Apex Court.

Agreeing with the High Court view, the Apex Court bench observed that Rayadu was a local candidate of Telangana and was entitled to as per his seniority in terms of Paragraph 18(f) of the guidelines.

'"It is true that the respondent may have been born in an area which now forms part of Andhra Pradesh and may have received a substantial part of his education in areas which now form part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, admittedly, he cleared all Board and University examinations from areas within the State of Telangana. At the time of bifurcation, he was posted in Hyderabad, which is now part of Telangana.", the bench observed.

While dismissing the appeal, the court made the following observations:

No separate domicile for a State.

Under the Constitution, India is a Union of States. Every part of every State is an integral and inseverable part of India. Admittedly, the Respondent was born in India. He has his domicile in the territory of India. As held by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India , under the Indian Constitution, there is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State.

 Reorganization Act cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country

The power to admit and include States into the Union under Article 2 of the Constitution, and to form new States and/or reorganize State, is in its very nature of the power, wide and its exercise necessarily guided by 7 AIR 1984 SC 1420 26 political issues of considerable complexity, many of which may not be judicially manageable. . Article 3, empowers Parliament to enact law and form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by granting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State. The principles relating to change of sovereignty in international law are not applicable to re­organisation of the territory of the State under Article 3 of the Constitution of India. 62. When such an adjustment or reorganisation of territory takes place, the existing law as well as administrative orders in a particular territory continue to be in force and continue to be binding upon the successor State so long as they are not governed, changed or repudiated by the successor State.
As a citizen of India, the respondent has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. . Under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or infringes the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and any law made in contravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of the contravention would be void.. All statutes and all rules, regulations and bye­laws framed by the Government, which constitute law have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part­III of the Constitution of India.
The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014 or any other guidelines framed thereunder, including the guidelines circulated on 30.10.2014 cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country.. It is true that when a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines.. However, such rules, regulations and guidelines have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Case details

State of Telangana vs B. Subba Rayadu | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 767 | SLP(C) 1565­-66 OF 2021 | 14 September 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Headnotes

Constitution of India, 1950 ;  Articles 2,3 13, 19(1)(e) - Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014-  There is only one domicile i.e. domicile of the country and there is no separate domicile for a State -The Reorganization Act or any guidelines framed thereunder cannot take away from citizens, the right to reside and settle in any part of the country - When a State is divided and the employees and officers of the State Government have to be allotted to the two states, such allocation has to be done on the basis of the Rules and Regulations and by guidelines - However they have to be construed harmoniously with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (Para 59-68)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 136 - The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136  should not ordinarily be exercised to interfere with an otherwise just and reasonable order by recourse to hyper technicality upon a narrow, rigid and pedantic interpretation of the guidelines. (Para 55)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment




Next Story