Centre wants to delay UP division: Mayawati

Taking exception to the central government's decision to return the proposal for division of Uttar Pradesh into four parts, chief minister Mayawati on Tuesday accused it of trying to shirk responsibility on the issue for political reasons. Addressing a press conference in Lucknow barely a few hours after receiving a letter from the central government, Mayawati said it was a "blatant violation of constitutional provisions" and aimed at "dillydallying" the all-important issue.

Referring to the union home secretary's letter with as many as eight key queries relating to modalities for sharing of finances and assets of the parent state, Mayawati called them a "deliberate roadblock".

Mayawati sought to point out it was the ultimate prerogative of the centre to create a new state.

“Nowhere does the Indian constitution say that the process of carving out a new state has to be initiated by a state government or by the assembly of the concerned state assembly,” she said.

“The national parliament is fully empowered to suo motu initiate the creation of a new state and after passing such a resolution it has to be sent to the president, who may seek the opinion of the concerned state legislature,” she said.

Mayawati even cited the provisions of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution: "Parliament may by law form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of any state.” 

The article says, "Parliament can also increase or decrease the area of any state as also alter the boundaries or even the name of any state in the country.”

Further pointing out that the constitution also provides for initiating the entire process by the president too, she said, "Fact remains that the state government has no role to play in the creation of another state; and it was amply evident that by shooting off such a letter and raising irrelevant queries, the central government is simply trying to shirk its responsibility."

Citing the case of the formation of Uttarakhand, Mayawati urged the centre to follow the same process.

"Let me remind the central government that the resolution for formation of Uttarakhand was passed by the state legislature on April 24, 1997, and forwarded to the central government, which in turn returned it to the state legislature together with a letter from the president, following which a resolution was formally adopted by the state legislature March 30, 2000," she pointed out.

Mayawati had Nov 21 managed to get a resolution passed by the state assembly for division of the state into four smaller states - Purvanchal in eastern Uttar Pradesh, Paschim Pradesh in the west, Avadh Pradesh in the centre and Bundelkhand in the south.

According to her, "The dilly-dallying tactics adopted by the centre has made it clear they are just not serious about the issue and are simply trying to pass the buck to the state government for obvious political reasons."

"Right from day one when the BSP government was formed in 2007, I have been pursuing the issue with the prime minister, to whom a few letters were also written by me in this regard. However, since the centre never cared to pay any heed to our repeated appeals, we were left with no choice but to initiate the process by formally getting a resolution passed by the state assembly and then forwarding it to the central government."

Opposition wants Chidambaram's scalp, disrupts Parliament

 Home minister P Chidambaram speaks in Lok Sabha in New Delhi. PTI/TV grabOpposition MPs on Tuesday heckled home minister P Chidambaram to prevent him from speaking in Lok Sabha, part of the move to boycott the former finance minister in Parliament for his alleged complicity in the 2G spectrum allotment case.

Led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), MPs

rose from their seats and booed Chidambaram when he began replying to a question by Congress' Meenakshi Natarajan on human trafficking.

There was noisy protests and slogans whenever the home minister stood up to answer questions on issues like human trafficking and the present status of setting up of National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC).

Though barely audible, the home minister appeared unfazed and continued with his reply.

Demanding Chidambaram's resignation for his alleged role in irregularities in allotment of the 2G telecom spectrum when he was the finance minister, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) members had decided to boycott the home minister at the start of the winter session that began Nov 22.

The BJP also briefly disrupted proceedings in Rajya Sabha.

Soon after the House mourned the deaths in southern Philippines due to cyclone, Chandan Mitra (BJP) raised the issue of Chidambaram allegedly helping his former client, a charge that has been vehemently denied by the home minister.

BJP members also expressed anguish over the move in Siberia to ban Bhagavad Gita.

Chairman Hamid Ansari said a notice for zero hour mention has been accepted and the issue can be raised them.

An agitated NC Pany (BJP) demanded resignation of Chidambaram for his alleged role in the 2G scam.

He also said that the home minister was allegedly behind the midnight crackdown by the Delhi Police at the venue of yoga guru Ramdev's agitation at Ramlila grounds here.

Ansari disallowed Mitra, who was supported by AIADMK, and took up the first listed question of the day.

House panel wants CMs under lokayukta

Chief ministers should be brought under the purview of anti-graft lokayukytas in all the states since their position is not identical to that of the prime minister, according to a key recommendation of the parliamentary panel examining the Lokpal Bill.

The parliamentary standing

committee on law and justice, headed by Abhishek Singhvi, has concluded that in case a situation arises where a chief minister is forced to step down on charges of corruption, it would not lead to any constitutional crisis unlike at the Centre.

"The committee believes that the position of the chief minister is not identical to that of the prime minister. The arguments for preventing instability and those relating to national security or the image of the country do not apply in case of a chief minister," the draft report said.

The panel has also recommended that the lokayuktas should be given power to recommend action against ministers, MLAs and the chief minister found guilty of involvement in an act of corruption.

“The competent authority to take action against the minister would be the CM, against the MLA it would be the presiding officer of the House (Vidhan Sabha or Vidhan Parishad) and for the CM it would be the governor," says the report.

Currently, lokayuktas exist in 17 of the 28 states and this year has seen a direct confrontation between the anti-graft watchdogs and state governments of Gujarat and Karnataka.

Keeping this in mind, the panel has asked the Centre to expand the scope of the Lokpal Bill and lay down uniform standards for appointment of lokayuktas in states. The panel pointed out that even in states where lokayuktas existed, "There had been examples of the post lying vacant for periods ranging from two months to eight years."

Justice Manmohan Sarin, the lokayukta of Delhi, had demanded more powers for the anti-graft watchdogs in states, saying the institution had been reduced to a "toothless" tiger.

"Lokayuktas can do no more than name and shame. There is an urgent need to bring uniformity in the appointments and powers of lokayuktas in all the states.”