New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna on Wednesday recused from hearing the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute filed by Maharashtra in 2004 to claim certain parts of sections 3, 7 and 8 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
The suit was listed before the bench of Justices KM Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, and BV Nagarathna.
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 vs Karnataka
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.
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.
