PIL challenging AP bifurcation dismissed as not maintainable

The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition challenging the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.
The PIL had contended parliament has no power under Article 3 of the Constitution to divide the state.
"We are of the firm view that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. We wonder as to how he (petitioner) is justified in maintaining this writ petition before this Court," the First Bench, comprising acting Chief Justice Sathish K Agnihotri and Justice K Ravichandrabaabu, said.
The petitioner, advocate P R Krishnan, sought a declaration that under Article 3, read with Art 1, 4(2) and 368 of the constitution, parliament does not have power or any other provision of the constitution to divide a state, except by an appropriate amendment of the constitution and with unanimous consent of the people of the affected state or states.

He contended the President's power under Art. 3 is a power coupled with duty, which he has to discharge independently and on his own and that in the discharge of this duty he is not bound by any aid or advice by his Council of Ministers.
He also submitted that in bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the President and the council of Ministers had not acted in accordance with relevant provisions of the constitution.

When the petition was submitted in the registry, it raised a doubt about its maintainability before the Court.
Krishnan stated that being a resident of Tamil Nadu, the Court could very well entertain the petition and further and if the registry has doubt, it may be be posted for maintainability. Hence it was posted before the First bench.

The bench said "it is purely an internal issue or affair of that particular state against which no action can be initiated before any other High Court of other states even under the guise of Public Interest Litigation. We do not think that a PIL has got no boundaries or barricades".
"In the case on hand, no cause of action has arisen wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus this petition is not maintainable," it said.