A view of the Supreme Court. (Photo | EPS)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, while refusing to grant urgent listing of pleas against the HC’s order asking the State government to develop and construct Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months, posted the matter to July 11.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, noted that there were many lawyers, who would require time to advance their arguments. Appearing for one of the parties, former AG KK Venugopal told the bench that law that was enacted for the creation of three capitals was withdrawn. He added that all that remained to be argued was the impact of the HC verdict on the principle of separation of powers and the functioning of State government.
The YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government last year had heaved a sigh of relief as the Supreme Court had stayed the HC’s order asking the State government to develop and construct Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months. “Can the HC become a town planner?” the bench remarked.
The court also stayed the HC’s ruling of directing the State and the AP Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) to complete the process of redevelopment of Amaravati capital city within one month and hand over-developed reconstituted plots in Amaravati capital region to landholders, who surrendered their lands, within three months.
Frowning upon the HC issuing time-bound directions, Justice Nagarathna said, “It’s for the State to decide where the capital should be. The HC has overstepped its limits and it can’t become an executive.” It had also issued a notice in pleas filed by the Andhra Pradesh government against the HC’s ruling of declaring ‘Amaravati’ the State capital’.
In March, the HC bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and DVSS Somayajulu directed the State and APCRDA to build and develop the Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months as agreed under the APCRDA and land pooling rules. The HC had also stated that the Assembly had no ‘legislative competence’ for passing any resolution for change of capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city.
The State government in the petition before the SC, has argued that the HC’s verdict was violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The State, in the plea filed through advocate Mahfooz A Nazki, has also said under the federal structure of the Constitution, every State has the right to determine where it should carry out its capital functions.
