Hyderabad: The Andhra Pradesh government will seek legal opinions and approach the Supreme Court if necessary over the state high court’s order on Amaravati Thursday, minister Botsa Satyanarayana has told ThePrint, reiterating Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy’s commitment to “decentralisation”.
The order asked the government to develop Amaravati, as well as the surrounding capital region, as Andhra’s sole capital city, within six months.
In a setback to the government, the court also stated in its order that the assembly had no “legislative competence” to pass any resolution or law for a change of capital, or to bifurcate or trifurcate the capital city.
After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the former capital, Hyderabad, became part of Telangana, but would serve as the two states’ joint capital for 10 years. The proposed new city of Amaravati was to have been developed as the eventual capital of the successor state of Andhra Pradesh.
But after the Jagan-led YSR Congress Party government came to power in 2019, it decided to divide this into three capitals — an executive capital in Visakhapatnam, a legislative one in Amaravati, and a judicial one in Kurnool. However, this plan continues to face a series of legal hurdles.
In its order Thursday, the high court said, “We hold that the state legislature lacks competence to make any legislation for shifting, bifurcating or trifurcating the capital and heads of departments of the three wings of the government, including the high court, to any area other than the capital city notified under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (APCRDA), and the land pooled under the Andhra Pradesh Capital City Land Pooling Scheme Rules, 2015.”
However, Satyanarayana, the state’s minister of municipal administration, told ThePrint that the Jagan-led government is still very much committed to “decentralisation” of the capitals.
“Our government is keen on decentralisation and that is still our priority. Whether the state lacks legislative competence to take a decision on capitals and all is a debatable subject. Why can’t a state decide when there are constitutional powers to state in the federal structure?,” he asked.
“We will take legal opinions on this and will go to the Supreme Court if necessary,” he added.
Court order
The court order, passed by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, came in response to a clutch of writ petitions filed by Amaravati farmers who had given up their lands for the new capital under the previous Chandrababu Naidu-led Telugu Desam Party government — when Amaravati was to have been the sole capital.
The petitions pointed out that the Naidu government had pooled 33,000 acres of land from farmers in 29 villages of Amaravati to develop a ‘city-like’ capital in an otherwise rural area full of lush green fields. The Jagan government’s new plan has occasioned protests by thousands of farmers.
The petitioners argued that Amaravati should be developed in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, brought in by the previous government.
The court order stated that the state government, within three months, should develop all the plots or lands that can be considered fit for habitation in the capital city with promised facilities such as road connectivity, drainage and electricity, and hand them over to the farmers.
The court also directed the state and the APCRDA not to alienate, mortgage or create any third-party interest on the land pooled, except for the construction of the capital city or development of the capital region.
However, Satyanarayana argued that the Jagan government hadn’t argued against the development of Amaravati.
“Did we ever say we will not develop the Amaravati region? Or did we ever say that we will mortgage it for other purposes other than the development of the capital? In our earlier proposed three-capital plan, Amaravati was one of the capitals, and we promised development there,” said Satyanarayana.
“In fact, our chief minister, Jagan Reddy, offered a higher compensation to farmers and increased annuity. We also promised them developed plots. But, if you’re asking us to do it in a few months, that’s going to be difficult for any government,” he added.
Also read: How to name them? Where will HQ be? Why Jagan’s move to double AP districts has sparked protests
Legal hurdles
The petitions in court are challenging the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020, and the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development (Repeal) Act, 2020. The former authorised three capitals for the state, and the latter repealed the Naidu government’s APCRDA.
Although the Andhra government had repealed both these laws last year amid controversies and legal hurdles, the high court has continued to hear the petitions filed earlier. The government, at the time of withdrawal in November 2021, had promised to come back with a “better version” of the laws.
Senior advocate Jandhyala Ravi Shankar, one of the petitioners, said the court objected to the state’s legislative competence due to Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, which bifurcated the state into Telangana and the successor state of Andhra Pradesh.
This section permitted the central government to constitute an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding the new capital for Andhra Pradesh, and to make appropriate recommendations in a period not exceeding six months from the enactment of the law.
“This is a one-time affair. An expert committee (the Sivaramakrishnan Committee) was constituted and they gave recommendations. Some were followed and some were ignored by the previous government. But, ultimately, a capital was decided when the state split. So, it ends there. It cannot be that every government can change the capital according to their choice,” Ravi Shankar told ThePrint.
More trouble for govt, petitions still pending
There were close to a 100 petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, directly or indirectly challenging Jagan’s idea of having three capitals. Now, the number stands at about 60.
The court, however, has kept at least 40 writ petitions under ‘continuous mandamus’, in accordance with the petitioners’ request. A ‘continuous mandamus’ usually occurs in a situation where there is no instant remedy but the problem requires a solution over a long period of time, said Ravi Shankar, whose petition, No. 14338, is also under this category.
The court monitors compliance with its orders, and can seek regular reports from authorities on the progress of implementation of the orders, said Ravi Shankar.
“This would mean that the trouble for Andhra government will continue because even a slight move by the government against the court orders, or a new decision, will be challenged by the petitioners in an interlocutory application,” a senior counsel, who did not wish to be named, told ThePrint.
Kiran Kumar Paruchuri, legal coordinator of the Amaravati Joint Action Committee, added: “A few senior counsels also argued that the existing government can change its decision any time, and because hundreds of farmers have given up their lands and livelihood for Amaravati — hoping that it will be a capital — it is very important that it becomes the sole capital and is maintained like that for many decades to come. So, they requested a continuous mandamus on petitions.”
(Edited by Rohan Manoj)
Also read: 1 landmark, 2 stories, no clarity on name: This is AP’s Jinnah Tower, at heart of Jagan-BJP row