10 June,2026 04:54 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Uddhav Thackeray. File Pic
Shiv Sena (UBT) has raised concerns over the passage of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill, 2026, which ratifies Amaravati as the official capital of Andhra Pradesh, arguing that the legislation could create a constitutional precedent with implications for Maharashtra and Mumbai.
In an editorial published in the party mouthpiece Saamana on Saturday, the Uddhav Thackeray-led party claimed that while the bill is specific to Andhra Pradesh, it has triggered debate over the extent of Parliament's powers in matters traditionally considered the domain of state governments.
The editorial argued that the key issue is whether Parliament should have the authority to designate or ratify a state's capital city.
According to the article, Article 3 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to alter state boundaries, create new states, change names and modify territorial limits. However, it contended that decisions relating to a state's capital have historically been made by the respective state governments.
The party claimed that the Amaravati legislation could be interpreted as expanding the Centre's role in matters that were previously viewed as falling within the jurisdiction of states.
Citing the views of party leader Anil Shidore, the editorial alleged that the legislation could serve as a model for future interventions by the Centre in state affairs.
It argued that if Parliament can legislate on the status of a state capital in one case, similar measures could theoretically be introduced elsewhere. The editorial suggested a hypothetical scenario in which Mumbai could be designated a "National Economic Zone" and subsequently converted into a Union Territory through parliamentary legislation.
The party claimed that such a move could weaken Maharashtra's control over the country's financial capital, though it did not provide any indication that such a proposal is currently under consideration by the Centre.
The editorial also targeted Maharashtra's ruling Mahayuti alliance, including Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Ministers Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, accusing the leadership of failing to adequately protect the state's interests.
According to the article, the current political leadership lacks the commitment required to safeguard Maharashtra's regional identity and autonomy. The party alleged that cultural and political issues affecting the state have not received sufficient attention from those in power.
The editorial further claimed that decisions affecting Mumbai's future could face little resistance if the state's leadership remains passive on matters concerning Maharashtra's interests.
Drawing on the history of the Samyukta Maharashtra movement, the editorial emphasised that Mumbai became part of Maharashtra after a prolonged political struggle and the sacrifice of 106 martyrs.
The party argued that preserving Mumbai's status within Maharashtra remains an emotional and political issue for many residents of the state. It claimed that previous generations of leaders and political organisations had consistently resisted attempts that could dilute the city's connection with Maharashtra.
Apart from constitutional concerns, the editorial questioned the progress of Amaravati's development as Andhra Pradesh's capital city.
It noted that despite the acquisition of large tracts of land and substantial public investment following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and the creation of Telangana, several planned projects in Amaravati remain incomplete.
The article claimed that many proposed administrative buildings are yet to be fully operational and argued that legislative recognition alone does not guarantee the successful development of a capital city.
The editorial concluded by warning that decisions affecting state identity and regional autonomy require constant vigilance from political leaders and citizens alike.
While the Centre has not responded to the claims made in the Saamana editorial, the remarks have added a new dimension to the political debate surrounding the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill and its potential constitutional implications.
The comments also reflect the continuing political significance of Mumbai's status within Maharashtra, an issue that has historically remained central to regional politics in the state.
(With inputs from IANS)
