New Delhi, April 12 (IANS) Supreme Court judge Justice Aravind Kumar on Wednesday recused himself from hearing the Maharashtra government’s original suit filed in 2004 challenging the transfer of Belgaum, now named Belagavi, to Karnataka in 1956.
He is the second judge this year, who has opted out from hearing the matter.
On Wednesday, the matter came before a bench of Justices S.K. Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah. and Aravind Kumar. As counsel mentioned the matter and apprised the bench that in the past some of the judges (from the two states – Maharashtra and Karnataka) had recused themselves, Justice Kumar, who hails from Karnataka, recused himself from the hearing and now the matter will be listed before a bench where he is not a member.
The court’s order said: “List before the bench of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar) is not a member.”
The matter will now go to the Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to assign to a new bench.
In February, Supreme Court judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna recused herself rom the matter. After Justice Nagarathna, who hailed from Karnataka, opted out of hearing the matter, another bench was set up to consider the issue.
Earlier, in 2019, Justice M.M. Shantanagoudar and Justice S Abdul Nazeer had recused themselves from hearing the case.
The Karnataka government had objected to the maintainability of the suit contending there exists no legal right within a state to challenge alterations of its boundary. It had said that the legislative exercise of powers under Article 3 of the Constitution does not vest any right in a state government and 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.
The conflict between Maharashtra and Karnataka pertains to claims over towns and villages situated along the border of the two states.
Previously, the Central government had also questioned the maintainability of the suit and Karnataka had also maintained that only the Centre has been entrusted with the power to reorganise, alter or diminish areas of the states. It had emphasised that this cannot be questioned by the states and argued that the matter was resolved long ago and the settlement of boundaries as per the States Reorganisation Act was final.
In 2004, the Maharashtra government filed a plea in the Supreme Court challenging the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 and sought that 865 villages and towns from five Karnataka districts be merged with Maharashtra.
Citing Article 3, Karnataka argued that the apex court does not have the jurisdiction to decide states’ borders issues, and the only Parliament has the power to decide matters of this nature. However, Maharashtra had referred to Article 131 of the Constitution, which says the top court has jurisdiction in cases connected with disputes between the Centre and states.
Ever since the State Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament in 1956, Maharashtra and Karnataka have sparred over the inclusion of some towns and villages along the border. Justice Fazal Ali Commission was appointed in 1953 and submitted its report two years later. The 1956 Act is based on its findings.
–IANS
ss/vd
