Andhra Pradesh High Court Starts Hearing Challenge To 'Three-Capitals' Law

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has started hearing a clutch of writ petitions filed before it challenging the A. P. Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act 2020. Essentially, these Acts propose the formation of three capitals for the state. The Acts intend to develop Amaravati, Visakhapatnam, and Kurnool as the legislative, executive and judicial capitals respectively. Earlier, in August 2021, the High Court had adjourned the hearing on these pleas to November 15 due to the threat of a third wave of the Covid pandemic. On Monday and Tuesday, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued on behalf of Amaravati Parirakshana Samithi, before the Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and comprising Justices M. Satyanarayana Murthy and D. V. S. S. Somayajulu.State seeks recusal of two judgesThe State Government filed an application seeking recusal of Justices M Satyanarayana Murthy and Somayajulu from hearing the matter on the ground that they have lands in the Amaravati region. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the State Government, submitted that the judges have a pecuniary interest in the matter.The bench said that they will pass orders on the recusal application along with the main judgment, and proceeded to hear the matter on merits. Primary arguments put forth by Senior Advocate Divan Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that around 33,000 families of Amravati had given up their land for capital development, and now, they have no sustainable means of livelihood. He also contended that the abrupt halting of development in the capital region has led to the crashing of the value of plots and this could mean that these families would incur a loss of over Rs 30,000 crore if the value of returnable plots is estimated at the lowest prices. Significantly, he also argued that the power to make/decide upon the capital is of parliament under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution as fixing of new capital is constituent power of the parliament under these articles. Further, he also submitted that selection/decision regarding the state capital had is supposed to be a one-time exercise and that after every six-seven months, or as per the whims and fancies of the Government, the state can't change its decision on the State Capital. "After every six-seven month or before the elections, you can't do and ask parliament to facilitate you because you have now decided to make other places as the state capital, this is against the 2014 Act [The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014", argued Senior Advocate Divan. Referring to the 2014 Act, Senior Advocate Divan contended that the Parliament intended to make one capital for the State [Act uses the term 'a capital'], however, he said that this necessarily doesn't mean only one capital, but the Act of 2014 intended to create a capital city for the state of Andhra Pradesh. Provisions in the 2014 Act regarding the Capital of Andhra Pradesh. It may be noted that Section 5 (2) of the 2014 Act says that after the expiry of 10 years, Hyderabad shall be the capital of the State of Telangana and there shall be a new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Significantly, Section 6 of the 2014 Act says that the Central Government shall constitute an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding the new capital for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh and make appropriate recommendations. Further, Section 94 (3) of the Act says that the Central Government shall provide special financial support for the creation of essential facilities in the new capital of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh including the Raj Bhawan, High Court, Government Secretariat, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, and such other essential infrastructure. It also says that the Central Government shall facilitate the creation of new capital for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh, if considered necessary, by denotifying degraded forest land. Senior Advocate Continues Against this Backdrop, Senior Advocate Divan argued that the Central Government can't be asked to Felicitate the State Government every time it decides upon a new capital. Referring to Section 94 (3) of the 2014 Act, he argued that Central Government gave financial assistance to the State (supposed to be a one-time exercise) Raj Bhawan, High Court, Government Secretariat, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council, and such other essential infrastructure, however, after the elections, when the new party came into power, it decided to shift executive and judicial wing to other parts of the State. He also submitted that the decision regarding the capital was supposed to be taken in one go (one time exercise) and can't change your decision time and again. He also referred to Section 6 (Expert committee...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Starts Hearing Challenge To 'Three-Capitals' Law

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags