Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:14 pm

Digvijaya Singh said that Telangana is not like Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttakhand (that needed only a simple majority in parliament). Read the 32nd amendment that is specific to Andhra Pradesh: "Indira Gandhi had brought in the 32nd Constitutional Amendment Bill, by inserting new Articles, 371 (D) and 371 (E) under the head ‘Special provisions with respect to the state of Andhra Pradesh.’" Indira ensured of the 2/3 majority in parliament and at least 50% of states giving their nod - in the case of bifurcating AP (after Chenna Reddy's agitation in 1969 and Andhra agitation in 1972).

So, if the AP assembly does not ratify the Telangana separation bill, can CONmen get 2/3 majority in parliament for the T bill? Will 50% of the states endorse the T-bill? If the assembly of the state that is being bifurcated is opposed to the bill, it is possible that BJP, et al., may not vote in favor of the bill in parliament? The CON game may be stopped before the 2014 election.

Some T politicians have contradicted Digvijaya, but the 32nd amendment seems to be clear on Andhra Pradesh. Looks like Indira was clearly opposed to T politicians playing games with Hyderabad and the unity of AP.

Any thoughts on this?

by goodcitizn Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:23 am

Several weeks ago I posed a simple question to Carvaka. "If there was a referendum within AP on bifurcation, what will the majority opt for?" His answer was: "The majority will vote against bifurcation."

In a democracy, major decisions involving the livelihood of people must be approved by the majority of the people living in the state and not by politicians with their vested interests. However, if that route is taken politically, at least a two thirds majority in both houses has to be in favor of bifurcation. Since the votes are cast by a huge majority of politicians who don't live (nor have any clue about Telugu heritage), a simple majority of 51% is a slap on the face of the general public of Andhra Pradesh.

If 2/3rds majority were to opt for bifurcation, then the territories as well as the share of water, power and other vital resources must be clearly defined and agreed upon up front.

As an outsider looking in, this is my view in anwer to your question.

by truthbetold Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:39 am

Vp,

I read both 371d and 371e. These are simple to read and available on line. Try indiakanoon.

371d allows central role in state administration to create local areas within ap. 371e is to set up university of Hyderabad, a central university.
Neither of these laws restrict or modify or prohibit central govt right to define or modify state geography. Sc will quash the pil on this issue.

Parliament only needs a simple majority to create t state.
Assembly resolution to request division of a state is good politics but it is not a legal requirement.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:38 am

Hmm. Looks like Digvijaya was wrong. He was saying in July that the Telangana amendment needs 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament and 50% of states need to give their nod.

As per the non-binding aspect of AP state assembly resolution, it can still be a problem. If the state that is being bifurcated passes a resolution opposing it, it can affect how political parties vote at the center.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:02 pm

I got the info on the 32nd amendment from the site below. It also alludes to insertion of the 32nd amendment into the 7th schedule. Apparently, that is where the problem for Telangana comes from.

http://vickynanjapa.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/telangana-amendment-daunting-the-formation/

"This amendment was then inserted into the 7^th schedule of the Indian Constitution dealing with Union, state and also the concurrent lists. Now here is where the problem begins. Under Article 368 it clearly states if any change is to be made under the 7^th schedule then it has to be adopted by a special majority. Both houses have to pass the bill with a majority which shall not be less than two thirds. Further any amendment should be ratified by the state legislators. This means that 50 per cent of the states have to give the nod in case the amendment has to be ratified."

by confuzzled dude Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:06 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:I got the info on the 32nd amendment from the site below. It also alludes to insertion of the 32nd amendment into the 7th schedule. Apparently, that is where the problem for Telangana comes from.

http://vickynanjapa.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/telangana-amendment-daunting-the-formation/

"This amendment was then inserted into the 7^th schedule of the Indian Constitution dealing with Union, state and also the concurrent lists. Now here is where the problem begins. Under Article 368 it clearly states if any change is to be made under the 7^th schedule then it has to be adopted by a special majority. Both houses have to pass the bill with a majority which shall not be less than two thirds. Further any amendment should be ratified by the state legislators. This means that 50 per cent of the states have to give the nod in case the amendment has to be ratified."

Is that still valid considering how BJP fucked several states in '00 and is a part of gang rape.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:24 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:I got the info on the 32nd amendment from the site below. It also alludes to insertion of the 32nd amendment into the 7th schedule. Apparently, that is where the problem for Telangana comes from.

http://vickynanjapa.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/telangana-amendment-daunting-the-formation/

"This amendment was then inserted into the 7^th schedule of the Indian Constitution dealing with Union, state and also the concurrent lists. Now here is where the problem begins. Under Article 368 it clearly states if any change is to be made under the 7^th schedule then it has to be adopted by a special majority. Both houses have to pass the bill with a majority which shall not be less than two thirds. Further any amendment should be ratified by the state legislators. This means that 50 per cent of the states have to give the nod in case the amendment has to be ratified."
Is that still valid considering how BJP fucked several states in '00 and is a part of gang rape.

I presume that AP politicians have already been making noises on this with the high-command and Antony. In his talk at Hyd, Modi was talking as though justice has to be done to both regions. If BJP is stalling the house on food security bill, they can invent reasons to stall the Telangana bill and still bark that they will create Telangana if they come to power. Obviously, there has to be a constitutional amendment to detach the Andhra specific 32nd from the 7th schedule (for which 2/3 majority is needed) before the T bill is introduced under a different provision (or CONs may try to pass it under the 7th schedule hoping to get 2/3 majority). Meanwhile, the AP consultation process will eat into the monsoon session and MT may eventually have a nervous breakdown and go to the US for psychiatric treatment. KCR may go back to Bobbili looking for fresh hooch and Kodandaram will be in Nallakunta looking for anyone willing to commit hara kiri.

by Idéfix Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:59 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/t14915-judgmen-t-day#116300

by confuzzled dude Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:12 pm

Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t14915-judgmen-t-day#116300

That equation probably has changed a bit since. SeemAndhra politicians with any political aspirations will not vote for separation, SP will most likely will be against separation, so will (I'm guessing) ShivSena

by truthbetold Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:54 pm

Add trinamool to that list. That seemandhra Mp (26) +sp(22)+tc(19?)+com(?).
but in the end Sonia does not care t fails as long as she can blame others.

For now Sonia and chidambaram are going full steam ahead.

by Idéfix Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:57 pm

TBT and CD: you are right about the changing political equation. The T bill needs a simple majority which it may get, but the constitutional amendment required may not get enough votes. Given that, I don't know how the government wants to play the parliamentary game on this. The text of the AP-specific constitutional language needs to be looked into to figure out if a T bill can still be effective without removing that language from the 7th schedule.

by Idéfix Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:10 pm

The entire special provision is in Article 371D and 371E. You can read them starting on page 205 here: [url=http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock 2Pg.Rom8Fsss(27).pdf]http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(27).pdf[/url]

These articles basically provide powers to the president and parliament to intervene in state administrative matters within Andhra Pradesh. These powers are written as "may" do this or "may" do that. Union government has already exercised some of these powers, and some others were not exercised.

I am no constitutional scholar, but I don't see anything here that needs to be amended in order to create Telangana state. If the remaining state continues to be called Andhra Pradesh, then these articles can continue to apply to that state of Andhra Pradesh as originally written.

by truthbetold Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:52 pm

Ide,
my post above is in complete agreement with yours. However Vp added some twist with 7th schedule
Unless seemandhra gets a stay from supreme court, t state will be a reality within a year barring ntr reincarnating as Krishna.
I was reviewing srisailam dam maps. Rayala seems is heavily invested in this project. Eenadu has a nice article on this topic. I will provide. A link later. The problem is that t area side can generate power only at 880 meters. Water levels go beyond 880 only a small % of time. That means releasing water to rayalaseema will lower t power generation and without regular water release r will go dry.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:45 pm

One way or the other (to move out of 7th schedule or to directly put the bill to vote), Sonia has to take this through the 2/3 majority route in both houses of parliament. I see this whole thing being taken to the Supreme court. Instead, T guys may be better off to let Hyd become a UT. Then SA will cooperate with the split and in fact, T will benefit from Hyd being in its midst and also having a new capital (Warangal?).

by Sponsored content

Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?

Re: Does the Telangana bill require 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament?