Telangana officials view AP CM’s ‘give and take’ approach for resolving bifurcation issues with scepticism

The pending bifurcation issues concern how Telangana and Andhra Pradesh should divide institutions, assets and financial responsibilities after their separation. The disagreements matter because the two governments interpret the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 differently. Telangana wants the Act applied strictly, especially its location-based approach for assets and institutions situated in Telangana.

Specific disputes involve Schedule IX and X institutions not listed in the Act but located in Telangana, and public debt linked to externally aided projects. The article highlights a disagreement over 15 projects. Andhra Pradesh proposed dividing four projects by location, nine by utilisation and two by population, instead of using the Act’s population formula.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu has urged a “give and take” approach to settle all issues. Telangana officials view that proposal with scepticism. They say it could bypass the Act, especially after a debt decision placed an additional burden of ₹1,449 crore on Telangana.

The “principle of give and take” is Andhra Pradesh’s proposed negotiating approach for resolving the States’ remaining bifurcation disputes. It suggests that Telangana and Andhra Pradesh should make concessions in some areas to secure agreement across the wider set of unresolved questions. Naidu presented it as a way to settle the issues once and for all.

The approach becomes controversial when it conflicts with the Act’s prescribed methods. For example, the Reorganisation Act specifies population-based apportionment for public debt. Andhra Pradesh instead proposed different methods for externally aided projects: location for four projects, utilisation for nine and population for two. That proposal would increase Telangana’s burden.

Telangana officials therefore view “give and take” as a possible attempt to bypass the law. They prefer decisions based strictly on the Act, including location-based division of assets between the States. The disagreement shows that negotiation itself is not the only issue; the legal method used also matters.

The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is the legal framework governing the division of responsibilities between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. It provides rules for apportioning assets, institutions and public debt after bifurcation. That framework matters because it gives both governments a common standard when their preferred outcomes differ.

The article gives public debt as a clear example. The Act prescribes apportionment according to the population ratio, stated as 58:42. Andhra Pradesh proposed another formula for externally aided projects, using location for four, utilisation for nine and population for two. Telangana objected because the alternative method did not follow the Act’s stated basis.

Telangana’s government has consistently demanded strict adherence to the law. The Union Home Affairs Ministry has also issued some decisions supporting Telangana in the past. Naidu’s call for “give and take” now faces scepticism because officials fear negotiated exchanges could weaken the Act’s specific provisions.

The population-based division under the Reorganisation Act follows a 58:42 ratio between the two States. The article presents this as the prescribed basis for apportioning public debt linked to bifurcation. This provides a single, uniform formula rather than allowing each project’s location or usage to determine responsibility.

Andhra Pradesh proposed a different method for 15 externally aided projects. It wanted debt for four projects divided according to location, debt for nine based on utilisation and debt for two according to population. Thus, only two projects would use the Act’s population-based approach under that proposal. The alternatives would produce a different financial result.

The proposal would impose an additional ₹1,449 crore burden on Telangana, according to the article. Telangana objected that this contravened the Act. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy wrote to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, complaining about a unilateral Central Government order recovering money from Telangana and adjusting it to Andhra Pradesh.

Schedule IX and Schedule X are schedules in the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act that identify institutions subject to division arrangements. The article does not describe every institution in either schedule. In practical terms, their apportionment matters because deciding which State receives responsibility for an institution can also affect related assets, administration and future obligations.

The article identifies the apportionment of Schedule IX and X institutions as one of the disputes behind Naidu’s “give and take” proposal. Officials also mention institutions not listed anywhere in the Act. Those institutions are located in Telangana, and Telangana officials argue that their location means they belong to that State. This creates a direct disagreement over whether location or another arrangement should control.

Telangana wants these questions resolved strictly under the Reorganisation Act. Andhra Pradesh favours negotiations that may involve concessions across different issues. The outcome could shape control of institutions and the division of related public resources. The article does not report a final settlement between the States.

The most striking consequence was financial: the proposed methodology imposed an additional burden of ₹1,449 crore on Telangana. The article says this result conflicted with the Reorganisation Act, which requires public debt to be apportioned using the population basis. Telangana therefore challenged the method rather than accepting the extra liability.

The disagreement concerned externally aided projects. Andhra Pradesh proposed dividing debt for four projects by location, nine by utilisation and two by population. This replaced the Act’s stated population formula with a mixed approach. The Central Government then issued an order for recovery of the amount from Telangana, and the recovered sum was adjusted to Andhra Pradesh.

Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy wrote to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, calling the order “unilateral.” Telangana officials cited the episode as evidence that Andhra Pradesh’s “give and take” approach could move beyond the Act. The financial dispute therefore remains tied to the wider argument over legal authority.

Laws such as the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act matter because they create a shared rulebook for dividing public assets, institutions, debt and responsibilities. Without clear rules, two governments could apply competing principles to the same resource. A legal framework makes the process more predictable and gives each State grounds to challenge decisions it considers unfair.

The article’s debt dispute shows how this works. The Act prescribes population-based apportionment at 58:42. Andhra Pradesh proposed using location for four externally aided projects, utilisation for nine and population for two. Telangana argued that this alternative violated the Act, especially after it created an additional ₹1,449 crore burden.

The law also shapes disputes over Schedule IX and X institutions and institutions located in Telangana. Telangana seeks strict compliance, while Naidu advocates “give and take.” The Union Home Affairs Ministry has previously issued decisions supporting Telangana. Until the States agree within the legal framework, these issues remain politically and financially sensitive.