Can the supreme court stop the formation of Telangana?

I don't think that the Supreme Court can stop the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh now. According to the constitution, Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state. Article 3 The Parliament may by law (a) 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; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State; Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory Explanation II The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory The steps for creating a new state are as follows: A bill on a new state has to be recommended by the President.  In India it is usually the Cabinet which requests the President to do that. Article 3 makes it clear that the Parliament is the sole authority on making a decision on a new state.  President refers the bill to the State Assembly for its views giving it a certain period of time.   Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State Assembly.  If the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the specified period of time, the bill could be introduced in the Parliament after the expiry of the specified period. AP state assembly was given this time too. Why did the authors of the constitution put complete responsibility of creating new states ONLY with the Parliament?  Why did they not provide a bigger role for a State Assembly other than expressing ‘its views’ on the topic? To understand the intentions behind a certain clause in our Constitution the legal experts refer to the discussions of the authors that preceded the formulation of these clauses referred to as Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD). One legal expert clarifies: - When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions. - Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K Santhanam stated as under: “I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realises the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory… unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. It is the Constitutional intent that the will of the people of a region to form a separate State be the sole criterion for the Centre to initiate the process of State formation. This is the Constitutional benchmark for creating a new State for a region, as amply demonstrated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly and as reflected in the current phraseology of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. This interpretation of Article 3 prevailed over creation of many new states in modern India thereby nearly doubling the number of states in the last fifty years. If not for this interpretation, Andhra State would never have formed.  If India had not honored the ‘will of the people of a region to form a separate state’, there wouldn’t have been states like Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura, some of them composed of only two districts. Now the only scenario left where the Supreme Court or in fact any court can overturn/stay this bifurcation will be if the courts feel that by having the sole authority of state reorganization/formation/division/merger the Central government is through any means, destroying/endangering the basic structure of the constitution by hacking over the right of State assemblies to decide for themselves. But sadly, this has already been tried in one case. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-Interest_Litigation by an anti-Telangana advocate was planned to be the weapon to stop bifurcation, but with the merits of judgement crisply drafted by two judges with clear vision of constitutional scheme, it turned out to be facilitative weapon for countering the forces against Telangana. Mr PV Krishnaiah, a senior advocate, filed a PIL seeking a writ of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus restraining the President of India from exercising constitutional power under Article 3  in pursuance of any recommendation by the Union Cabinet on bifurcation. The petitioner also wanted declaration that Article 3 and Constitution (V Amendment) 1955, which modified earlier provision to the present text of Article 3, as unconstitutional alleging that it violated the basic structure and preamble of the Constitution. BASIC STRUCTURE: The basic question is whether Article 3 will hit any basic structure theory of the Constitution because it did not provide for any role to the Legislative Assembly of the state concerned in its division. Chief justice Kalyan Jyothi Sengupta and justice KC Bhanu of the High Court answered: We think ‘no’ for the simple reason that Article 3 has been designed in such a way that enables Parliament essentially to maintain the concept of federalism as it provides for separating or joining for reorganization of states. Article 3, in our view, has empowered Parliament to regulate and preserve federalism as enshrined in the Constitution. In that sense, it is one part of the basic structure of the Constitution. While refusing to hold that Article 3 hits the basic structure, the division bench held that Article 3 itself was part of the basic structure. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that Article 3 is violating the basic structure even if we assume that it is liable to be challenged.” The bench has further laid down that “a plain reading of the provision, the legislature has merely made a provision regarding methodology with regard to formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states.” The bench explained, “With the insertion of Article 3, no portion of the Constitution, much less any portion which relatable to basic structure, has been affected. MECHANISM: The court explained the mechanism provided by Article 3. A bill has to be prepared for creating a new state for introducing in either House of Parliament on the recommendation of the President and again, if the proposal contained in the bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the states, the bill has to be referred by the President to the legislature of that state for expressing its views. This ‘safeguard measure’ in the form of proviso was inserted to avoid any complaint of exercise of unbridled power of Parliament and the recommendation of the President and obtaining views of the state legislature concerned were sought to be made an essential part of this exercise of Parliament. Finally, the High Court said that it could not review and rethink or probe the mind of the legislature simply because it is not within its jurisdiction and only Parliament can think of it with compliance. We are of the view that recommendation of the President and obtaining views of the state concerned are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_qua_non. PRESIDENT’S POWER: On whether the court can restrain the President from recommending a bill on Telangana, it said: The President, being de jure head of the country, is constitutionally deemed to be the wisest citizen of the country and can think whether any recommendation should be given or not.  No one can presume that Parliament or the President or state Assembly will act unconstitutionally. The President can, under no circumstances, be restrained by any court of law, Parliament or executive. He is absolutely free to act in terms of the provisions of Article 3. And finally of course, this is what happened. Sources & References http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Division-of-states-has-set-procedures-and-precedents/2013/10/17/article1839772.ece1#.UxYa7cH4Lks http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2824/stories/20111202282407500.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act,_1956 http://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/constitutionofindia/firstschedule.php?Title=Constitution+of+India%2C+1949&STitle=First+Schedule http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1659104/ http://sujaiblog.blogspot.in/2011/01/key-to-telangana-article-3.html http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Art-3-of-constitution-preserves-India%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s-federal-character/2013/11/17/article1895432.ece#.UxYbTsH4Lks

There is a very simple answer to this question. There are limits to what the Supreme Court can do and what it can not do. In a similar manner in which there are things that the parliament can do sand things that it cannot do. The Supreme Court cannot "stop" the bifurcation, it is not within its powers what at best it can do is see if the bill on any manner violates the constitutional procedure. If in case it finds that the proper constitutional procedure has not been followed it can request the parliament to do so. It cannot adjudicate upon the wisdom of the parliament.

Supreme Court will not interfere in this issue as Article 3 gives complete authority regarding  remarkation of boundaries of states to parliament. There have been few SC Judgments of past which confirm the same.  Parliament need not consider the opinion of Assembly. Its just a namesake formality like many other things in our country.