News Updates

YSR Congressman petitions against Telengana in SC

Live Law News Network
20 Feb 2014 5:07 AM GMT
YSR Congressman petitions against Telengana in SC
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?
YSR Congress MP filed a petition in the Supreme Court on Tuesday opposing the constitutional status of the Bill passed by the Lok Sabha for the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

Rajamohan Reddy, the petitioner, proclaimed it as unconstitutional the Cabinet Resolution of October 3, 2013 approving the proposal of Union Home Ministry for creation of 29th state of Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh.

The parliamentarian sought the proposed Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2013, as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the Constitution.

Two petitions challenging the separation of Andhra Pradesh, filed on February 7 and 17 respectively, were denied of trial by the apex court as the bench declared the plea as “premature”. The Bill which shall give birth to Telengana is yet to get approved by Rajya Sabha.

Justice H L Dattu headed the bench on both the proceedings session quoted court's judgment rendered on the November 18, 2013. On all of the occasions the basis for dismissal of petitions was mutual. .

On February 7, the court rejected to stay the tabling of Telangana Bill and on February 17, it refused to hear the two petitions challenging the division of Andhra Pradesh for the creation of Telengana.

“We do not see any change in the stage between November 18, 2013 and today (February 7). So we decline to interfere at this stage,” the bench had said while rejecting the special leave petition on February 17

Henceforth, the apex court had said it cannot take a different stand and different view from what it had taken on February.

"Parliament is seized of the Bill. This is not a time for court to look into it. We understand your (petitioners) point that it is introduced," the bench had contended.

However, it mentioned that writ petitions can be considered to be heard at an appropriate stage by the court.

Next Story