So far through interpretations or judgments we didn’t
acknowledge the states sovereignty. As per Article 1 India shall be a Union of
States. Our founding fathers couldn’t speak loud about the sovereign states at
the time when the constitution was written. If they did, India would have been
ended up with around 600 States, and it would have been a big obstacle to build
a stable and bigger nation. However sovereignty is the hidden agenda of the
Article 1. States and UT’s have territories physically but the Union didn’t
have any territory physically.
International Laws define and treat a state as sovereign
state, if it meets the following criteria and it treats them as a person while
dealing.
1. A defined territory
2. A permanent population
3. A government
4. A capacity to enter into relations with other states.
So as per international laws our Indian States are
sovereign, they have a defined territory as per Article 1. They have permanent
population. They are governed by elected legislatures through Legislative State
Assemblies. They are entering into agreements with fellow states and
international organizations and companies.
Not only Article 1, Article 368 also confirms that the
Indian States are sovereign. As per Article 368 (2) any amendment to the
constitution need 2/3 majority and for some other amendments like “(d) the
representation of States in Parliament”needs 2/3rd majority and also half of
the State Legislative Assemblies have to approve this. It means that the
majority of the Union members have to approve it, and then only that amendment
(Bill) is presented to the President for assent. It proves that the Indian
States are not federal states, they are sovereign States.
As per Article 2 Parliament has full right to admit the
kingdom of Sikkim into Indian Union. But the parliament made 35th
constitutional amendment in 1974 and took the union members approval i.e. Half
of the states assembly’s resolutions first and then it got the Sikkim in to the
union of India through 36th amendment. By doing this the parliament also
indirectly agreed that the Indian states are sovereign.
The kingdom of Sikkim joined the Union of India in 1975
as 22nd State, it has a right for its self-existence. Hypothetically, Can Union
of India use Article 3 and merge the Sikkim state into West Bengal state
without Sikkim States assembly approval and abolish Sikkim statehood? If the
Union of India is empowered with such a lethal weapon Article 3, Will the Nepal
going to join the Union of India? Has Sikkim lost its sovereign status after it
became a member of Union of India? It is clear that the Article 3 is not as per
the fundamentals and principles of a union. So Article 3 is contradicting the
theme and sprit of Article 1. Article 1 supersedes the Article 3, so Article 3
must be void.
If United Nations (UNO) comes and declares that one of
the Indian State is not part of the India and declares that state as
independent, then does the Union of India is going to keep quiet? If the UNO is
empowered with a power that it can diminish a country or create a new country,
then can any country will join such a union? Since UNO is the head of the
nations, Can we say that all the countries are not sovereign? It is not true
and it is not acceptable, so it is clear that the Union Government can’t take
away the sovereign status of its members and their right to self-existence.
Our founding fathers were aware that the Article 3 is not
as per Union fundamentals, but at the time of drafting our constitution they
badly needed the Article 3, to merge 562 princely states into fewer states
(Part A (9), B (8), C (10), D (1) States) to give a long lasting stability to
Union of India. It should have been abolished after achieving this. Instead
they took away the Article 3 from Parliament through Constitutional 5th
Amendment in 1956 and they maintained the States sovereignty.
As per 5th Amendment to Article 3 in 1955 “Provided that
no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament
except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal
contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States
” This part applies to Article 3a and 3e. The bifurcation and to alter the name
of a state process must start with a proposal from the corresponding state, it
is also indirectly honoring the states sovereignty. The next part “the Bill has
been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing
its views” This part applies only to Article 3b, 3c and 3d. The President
initiates and sends a bill to the concerned state or states, to obtain its views
only in case of border dispute between the states. The 5th amendment to Article
3 is ambiguous and failed to spell out the above in detail, everyone is
misinterpreting it and taking this for their advantage.
Until 1999 all the states were bifurcated based on the
1st SRC, and the corresponding states legislative assemblies proposed the
bifurcation bill, so the divisions and their processes uphold the sovereignty
of the states.
I submitted the above argument in writing (Written
Arguments) in Supreme Court of India as part of my Civil Writ Petition 207 of
2014 and requested to declare that all the states of the Union of India as
sovereign. And the states have the right for self-existence.
Vande mataram
Thanking You
Vishnu Alluri
No comments:
Post a Comment