Telangana HC | Hyderabad, July 13 (Maxim News): A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court comprising the Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin today heard Public interest litigation filed by Syed Iftequar Hussaini and argued by Advocate Barkat Ali Khan and issued notices to the respondents in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
According to the petitioner, Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, miscalculates and misinterprets Article 171(3) of the Constitution.
It is alleged that, as a result, two MLC seats were shifted from the Governor’s nomination quota to the municipalities and MLA quotas, disturbing the constitutional composition of the Legislative Council.
The petitioner submitted that this shift violates Articles 14, 171(3)(a) and 171(3)(d) of the Constitution. It was further argued that the Constituent Assembly spent days and finally on 2 June 1949 approved proper balance in the Legislative Council.
The petition points out that Section 23 came into effect on 2 June 2014, and alleges that right after 65 year it disturbed the constitutional balance envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Telangana HC Issues Notices
The petitioner also highlighted the section 10 of Representation of People act 1950 and further argued that Article 171(5) empowers the Governor to nominate persons having special knowledge or practical experience.
According to the PIL, by increasing the Local Authorities and MLA quotas, the Governor’s nomination quota was reduced by 25%, thereby reducing the representation of experts in the Legislative Council and undermining the constitutional scheme.
The petition also contends that Section 23 allotted 14 seats each to the municipalities and MLA categories instead of 13 seats, contrary to the constitutional formula under Article 171(3).
It was further argued that Article 171(3)(a) to (e) prescribes the composition of the Legislative Council in the proportions of one-third, one-twelfth, one-twelfth, one-third, and the remaining members as remainder to be nominated by the Governor.
The petitioner alleged that although the Constitution uses the clear expression, the respondents applied it inconsistently and deviated from the scheme of the constitution resulting in an arbitrary and selective calculation.
The Division Bench issued notices to the respondents. And posted matter for next week. (Maxim News)
Now you can get the latest stories from Indtoday on Telegram every day. Click the link to subscribe. Click to follow Indtoday’s Facebook page, Twitter, and Instagram. For all the latest Hyderabad News updates and Follow us on GoogleNews
