NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India UU Lalit on Tuesday recused himself from considering Andhra Pradesh government’s plea against the high court ruling that declared Amaravati as the State’s capital.When the matter was taken up for hearing, Senior Advocate C Aryama Sundaram told the bench, comprising CJI Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi, that the CJI had given an opinion to Rajasthani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi before the law was passed. Considering Sundaram’s submission, the CJI said, “Let all these matters be listed before the bench of which I am not a member at an early date.”
YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s government had aimed to establish Amaravati as the legislative capital, Visakhapatnam as the executive capital and Kurnool as the judicial capital. This was challenged by landowners of Amaravati who had given up their livelihood by surrendering their agricultural land for the development of the capital city and the capital region.
However, while ruling in favour of the landowners, a bench of AP High Court, comprising Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and DVSS Somayajulu, directed the State and AP Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) to build and develop the Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months as agreed under APCRDA and Land Pooling Rules.
The court had also directed the State to hand over the developed and reconstituted plots belonging to landowners in Amaravati capital region within three months. It had said that the State Assembly had no “legislative competence” for passing any resolution or law for change of capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city. The bench had thus effectively preempted the State’s move to revive its “three capital” proposal.
“Therefore, it is for Parliament to set up three organs of the State, i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary, which are essential to the State administration. Thus, it is made clear that the words “supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions” include establishment of legislature, executive and judiciary. By applying the principles laid down in the above judgment, we safely hold that the power is vested in Parliament to set up legislature, executive and judiciary, but not the State legislature,” the bench observed. It further noted that the State legislature is incompetent to enact any law for setting up those three wings.
The State government in the petition before the SC argued that the HC’s judgement is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers since it preempts the legislature from taking up the issue. The State in the plea filed through advocate Mahfooz A Nazki has also said that under the federal structure of the Constitution, every State has an inherent right to determine where it should carry out its capital functions.
The issue had become “infructuous” since the two laws that were challenged in the HC were repealed. “To hold that the State does not have the power to decide on its capital is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution,” the State said.
State govt’s plea to SC
State govt in its plea argued that the HC’s ruling is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers since it preempts the legislature from taking up the issue
‘AP has right to choose capital’
The State also said that under the federal structure of the Constitution, every State has an inherent right to determine where it should carry out its capital functions