Split Andhra Pradesh, and its special status goes: AG to government
- Achhe din govt has failed the country, says Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha
- AAP crisis: Bhushan hits back, blames Khetan for planting stories in favour of 2G accused
- SC refuses to dismiss NGT's ban on older vehicles
- I was Nitish Kumar's mask, but I unmasked him: Jitan Ram Manjhi
- Oil paper leak: Court takes cognisance of chargesheet filed against accused
In other words, AG Vahanvati has told the GoM that for Telangana to be created, Parliament would have to pass a constitutional amendment, and that the two new states would lose the special status provided under this article.
Under Article 4, any law that provides for bifurcation of a state is not deemed to be an amendment to the constitution even if it amends certain provisions of the constitution. However, in the case of Andhra Pradesh, due to Article 371-D, the situation is different.
Sources told The Indian Express that the GoM, mindful of the problems the government could run in to if the AG's opinion were to be accepted in toto, is likely to seek some clarifications — or even a fresh, more detailed opinion from the top law officer.
Article 371-D, which was inserted through the 32nd Amendment in 1973, empowers the President to issue orders from time to time providing for equitable opportunities for people belonging to different parts of the state. This provision, which has overriding effect on other articles of the constitution, was brought in following agreement on a six-point formula between leaders of the state on September 21, 1973. This formula was aimed at a uniform approach for "accelerated development of the backward areas" of Andhra Pradesh, and to provide "equitable opportunities" to different areas of the state in the matter of education and employment in public services.
One effect of this provision was the division of Andhra Pradesh into six administrative zones for purposes of reserving jobs to boost local employment.
Sources in the GoM said that Vahanvati has said in his opinion that since Article 371-D was enacted for the purpose of equal opportunities for the entire state, if the state is bifurcated, "it would not be proper to apply Article 371-D to the remaining part of state of AP".
This, the AG has opined, would be contrary to the very purpose and intent of the provision.