Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Wednesday recused from hearing the Maharashtra- Karnataka border dispute.
The suit was listed before the bench of Justices KM Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, and BV Nagarathna.
The suit was filed by the State of Maharashtra in 2004 seeking to disclose certain parts of sections 3,7 and 8 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
The act relates to reorganizing the states along linguistic lines. The parts were challenged on the ground by the Maharashtra government on the ground that 865 villages and places from five Karnataka districts constitute Marathi-speaking people and should not be a part of the state of Karnataka, but Maharashtra.
Maharashtra government while referring to Article 131 of the Constitution which empowers SC to consider the dispute between state governments of two states said that the apex court has jurisdiction in cases of disputes in which the Union government and the states are involved.
ALSO READ | Justice BV Nagarathna, a woman and a ‘dissenter’ headed for the top
Objecting to the suit, the Karnataka government contended that only the Parliament and not the Supreme Court can decide state borders under article 3 of the Constitution. It was also argued that a state has no legal right within a State to challenge alterations of its boundary. “The legislative exercise of powers under Article 3 does not vest any right in a State government. When such an exercise is carried out, no consent or concurrence of a State is taken in terms of proviso to Article 3, only views of the State are taken,” Karnataka govt stated.
The govt further contended that the basis of the State Reorganization Act was not merely linguistic and the States were not divided just on the basis of language spoken by the citizens but it is myriad consideration of financial, economic, and administrative considerations.
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Wednesday recused from hearing the Maharashtra- Karnataka border dispute.
The suit was listed before the bench of Justices KM Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, and BV Nagarathna.
The suit was filed by the State of Maharashtra in 2004 seeking to disclose certain parts of sections 3,7 and 8 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
The act relates to reorganizing the states along linguistic lines. The parts were challenged on the ground by the Maharashtra government on the ground that 865 villages and places from five Karnataka districts constitute Marathi-speaking people and should not be a part of the state of Karnataka, but Maharashtra.
Maharashtra government while referring to Article 131 of the Constitution which empowers SC to consider the dispute between state governments of two states said that the apex court has jurisdiction in cases of disputes in which the Union government and the states are involved.
ALSO READ | Justice BV Nagarathna, a woman and a ‘dissenter’ headed for the top
Objecting to the suit, the Karnataka government contended that only the Parliament and not the Supreme Court can decide state borders under article 3 of the Constitution. It was also argued that a state has no legal right within a State to challenge alterations of its boundary. “The legislative exercise of powers under Article 3 does not vest any right in a State government. When such an exercise is carried out, no consent or concurrence of a State is taken in terms of proviso to Article 3, only views of the State are taken,” Karnataka govt stated.
The govt further contended that the basis of the State Reorganization Act was not merely linguistic and the States were not divided just on the basis of language spoken by the citizens but it is myriad consideration of financial, economic, and administrative considerations.
