The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014, the Supreme Court’s role, and the Central Government’s involvement are pivotal to understanding the ongoing impasse between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (AP). Recently, AP approached the Supreme Court for a “Just, Reasonable and Equitable Apportionment” of assets and liabilities under the Reorganisation Act, over eight years after AP was bifurcated into the residuary state and Telangana. The division still remains elusive due to the states’ differing interpretations of the Act’s provisions.
The Background of the AP Reorganisation Act
On 2nd June 2014, the northwestern part of AP was separated to create the 29th state, Telangana. This followed the States Reorganisation Act (1956), which merged the Telugu-speaking areas of Hyderabad with Andhra, forming an enlarged AP. With the subsequent AP Reorganisation Act in 2014, two distinct states were created.
Pending Issues After Bifurcation
The asset division involves 245 institutions valued at ₹1.42 lakh crore, including 91 under Schedule IX and 142 under Schedule X of the Act. The division of other 12 institutions not listed in the Act is now contentious between the states. AP accuses Telangana of selectively accepting recommendations from the committee led by Sheela Bhide, leading to delays in the division process.
Contention Over Division of Assets
Telangana government criticized the expert committee’s decision on the asset division that excluded headquarter assets, arguing it violates the spirit of the Reorganisation Act. In response, AP claimed that it hasty accepted recommendations to expedite the division process.
The Central Government’s Role
The Ministry of Home Affairs clarified the matter of headquarter assets in 2017. It explained that if a single-state undertaking is located in or its operations are confined to one local area, it shall be apportioned on location, per Section 53 of the Reorganisation Act. The Act also empowers the Union Government to intervene as required.
The Supreme Court’s Role
As per Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and the states or between states. Under Article 263, the Inter-state council can inquire into and advise on disputes, discuss subjects common to all states and make policy coordination recommendations.
Solving Inter-State Disputes
Cooperative federalism ethos needs to be adopted by both the Central and state governments for strengthening unity. The Constitutional responsibilities of the Inter State Council in resolving inter-state disputes need to be fulfilled in reality. Similarly, Zonal councils should be revived to address social and economic planning, border disputes, inter-state transport etc., which are of common concern to states in each zone.
In 2014, a UPSC Civil Services Examination question asked about the Supreme Court of India’s power to adjudicate disputes between the Centre and the States, which falls under its original jurisdiction (answer c).
The ongoing stalemate between AP and Telangana reflects the challenges faced during partition of assets post bifurcation as per the AP Reorganisation Act. A balanced and fair approach, coupled with active involvement of the Central Government and the judicious use of constitutional bodies, is crucial to resolving such inter-state disputes for maintaining the nation’s unity in diversity.
