The Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, including the power to abolish States, and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate direction to the Government of Andhra Pradesh restraining it from functioning under the provisions of the States Reorganisation act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) ON 31st August, 1956, the Parliament of the Republic of India passed the states Reorganisation Act, 1956, to come into effect from the 1st day of November, 1956, providing, inter alia, for the disintegration of the State of Hyderabad and incorporating different parts of the same with other States. The petitioner, who is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the defunct Hyderabad State, has attacked the validity of the Act on various grounds. He alleged that the prime Minister of India made up his mind to disintegrate the State of Hyderabad without consulting the Cabinet and brought it about by taking the necessary steps and that the Committees appointed, the Governments concerned, the Legislatures of the States and the Parliament faithfully implemented his scheme. He averred that the Hyderabad State could only be distintegrated by convening a constitutional assembly to achieve that object and that, as this was not done, the Constitution of the Republic of India could not affect its legal existence. He further stated that the division of India on linguistic basis created fissiparous tendencies and started a de-vitalising and disruptive process to the detriment of the best interests of the Nation. He finally attacked the Validity of the Act on the ground that the constitution did not confer any such right on the Parliament to abolish States recognised by it and that, in any event, the procedure prescribed was not followed.

( 3 ) THE Government of Andhra"pradesh, in their counter, pointed out that the allegations made against the Prime Minister and the Congress Committee were irrelevant. They averred that the Act was passed by the Parliament in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Constitution and in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed, thereunder. They took the preliminary objection that the application was not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner did not disclose how his personal interest was violated or affected by the passing of the Act and also for the reason that the petitioner did not state the precise relief he wanted and the form in which it should be given to him.

( 4 ) THE petitioner who is an advocate of long-standing at the Bar, though at present he is not in active practice advanced an able and clear argument on the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, though at times his passion for the cause of Hyderabad clouded his legal perspective and led him into exhortations pertaining to the field of politics rather than that of law. It may, therefore, be convenient at the outset to disentangle the legal questions from political ones so that the former may satisfactorily be dealt with. The opinions entertained by the Prime Minister, the views expressed by him, the promises made by responsible politicians from time to time, the powerful influence exercised by the Prime minister on the political institutions and the persons manning the different bodies who took part at various stages in the passing of the Act pertain to the domain of politics and a Court of law has no concern with them. Latham, C. J. in South australia v. The Commonwealth, 65 Commonwealth Reports 373 at 409. has succinctly stated the irrelevance of such questions in a legal controversy at page 409 :"thus the controversy before the Court is a legal controversy, not a political controversy. It is not for this or any Court to prescribe policy or to seek to give effect to any views or opinions upon policy. We have nothing to do with the wisdom or expediency of legislation. Such questions are for Parliaments and the people. . . . . The Court must consider and deal with such a legal contention. But the Court is not autho