🇮🇳 Our Demand for UT — Present Status (Fact Check) 🇮🇳 ~ Pakhum

🧾 Fact: MHA said creating a new UT is not feasible under current policy but needs broad consultations.

➡️ Meaning: Policy may not allow it now, but the Constitution (Article 3) allows it.

Policy can change — the Constitution cannot.

🏛️ Past Examples – First Rejected, Later Approved:

Telangana – "Not feasible" → State (2014)

Jharkhand – "Too small" → State (2000)

Delhi – "Security issue" → UT with Legislature (1991)

Ladakh – "Sensitive area" → UT (2019)

Puducherry – "Too small" → UT with Legislature (1962)

👉 Our UT Demand: "Not feasible" + "Broad consultations" → Under consideration

⚖️ Legal Point:
Article 3 empowers Parliament to create or alter States/UTs.

No amendment needed.

"Not feasible" = Policy stance, not legal rejection.

✅ Conclusion:
Centre has not rejected our UT demand.

"Broad consultations" means the door is open.

Every new State/UT in India began with "not feasible."

📘 Our demand for UT is constitutional, possible, and still open. 

BY PAKHUM

Share: