Jagan govt takes three-capital row to SC

NEWDELHI: The Andhra Pradesh government on Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging a high court judgment declaring Amaravati as the State’s capital. In the Special Leave Petition filed through Advocate Mahfooz A Nazki, the State government argued that the High Court judgment violated the doctrine of separation of powers since it preempted the legislature from taking up the issue. 

Andhra Pradesh also pointed out that under the federal structure of the Constitution, each State has an inherent right to determine where it should carry out its capital functions. The issue became “infructuous” since two legislations that were challenged in the high court were repealed.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 in the petition.

The State approached the high court days after Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy reiterated in the State Assembly that his government’s decentralised administration policy was meant for Andhra’s overall development.

The YSRC government has been pushing for three capitals for Andhra Pradesh: Amaravati, the legislative capital, Visakhapatnam as the executive capital, and Kurnool, the judicial capital. As part of the proposal, the government brought in the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020, which was challenged by the farmers of Amaravati region. The farmers have given up their land for the development of the sole capital. On Friday, IT Minister Guduvada Amarnath had hinted that executive capital would start functioning from Visakhapatnam from the next academic year.

In March this year, a high court bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice DVSS Somayajulu directed the State and AP Capital Region Development Authority to build and develop the Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months, as agreed under the AP Capital Region Development Authority Act (APCRDA) and Land Pooling Rules. 

It also directed the handing over the developed and reconstituted plots belonging to landowners in Amaravati capital region within three months. The court also said that the State Assembly had no “legislative competence” for passing any resolution -- or law -- for changing the capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city. 

The high court had thus effectively preempted the State’s move to revive its “three capital” proposal. 
“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 had said while delivering the judgment. It further noted that the State legislature was incompetent to enact any law for setting up those wings.

(With inputs from Vijayawada bureau)

NEWDELHI: The Andhra Pradesh government on Saturday moved the Supreme Court challenging a high court judgment declaring Amaravati as the State’s capital. In the Special Leave Petition filed through Advocate Mahfooz A Nazki, the State government argued that the High Court judgment violated the doctrine of separation of powers since it preempted the legislature from taking up the issue.  Andhra Pradesh also pointed out that under the federal structure of the Constitution, each State has an inherent right to determine where it should carry out its capital functions. The issue became “infructuous” since two legislations that were challenged in the high court 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 in the petition. The State approached the high court days after Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy reiterated in the State Assembly that his government’s decentralised administration policy was meant for Andhra’s overall development. The YSRC government has been pushing for three capitals for Andhra Pradesh: Amaravati, the legislative capital, Visakhapatnam as the executive capital, and Kurnool, the judicial capital. As part of the proposal, the government brought in the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020, which was challenged by the farmers of Amaravati region. The farmers have given up their land for the development of the sole capital. On Friday, IT Minister Guduvada Amarnath had hinted that executive capital would start functioning from Visakhapatnam from the next academic year. In March this year, a high court bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy and Justice DVSS Somayajulu directed the State and AP Capital Region Development Authority to build and develop the Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months, as agreed under the AP Capital Region Development Authority Act (APCRDA) and Land Pooling Rules.  It also directed the handing over the developed and reconstituted plots belonging to landowners in Amaravati capital region within three months. The court also said that the State Assembly had no “legislative competence” for passing any resolution -- or law -- for changing the capital or bifurcating or trifurcating the capital city.  The high court had thus effectively preempted the State’s move to revive its “three capital” proposal.  “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 had said while delivering the judgment. It further noted that the State legislature was incompetent to enact any law for setting up those wings. (With inputs from Vijayawada bureau)