New Delhi: The Jagan Mohan Reddy government’s plan to establish three capital cities for Andhra Pradesh as opposed to one has run into a significant legal stumbling block. The Andhra Pradesh High Court Thursday not only held that the state assembly does not have legislative competence to bifurcate or trifurcate the state capital, it also instructed the government to develop Amaravati as the capital city within six months.
The judgment came on a bunch of petitions, filed mostly by farmers who had voluntarily given up their land for Amaravati to be developed as the capital, as proposed by the previous Telugu Desam Party (TDP) regime in 2014.
The Jagan government had, after coming to power in 2019, envisaged the development of Amaravati, Visakhapatnam and Kurnool as the state’s legislative, executive and judicial capitals, respectively.
The three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, ruled Thursday that Parliament alone is competent to deal with the setting up of legislature, executive and judicial organs of the state, and this was implicit in the language employed in Article 4 of the Constitution.
“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,” the bench ordered.
It directed the state government to construct and develop Amaravati capital city and capital region within six months, as agreed in the terms and conditions under the APCRDA, which was prepared by the previous TDP regime, and the Land Pooling Rules, 2015.
The bench also observed that the state had failed to undertake development of infrastructure and hand over the developed plots to farmers, who had voluntarily given up their agricultural land towards the Land Pooling Scheme for development of the capital city and region.
“It is clear that the livelihood of the petitioners/farmers and their right to live a life of dignity has been taken away in this case,” the bench observed.
It also faulted the Jagan Reddy administration for changing the policy after forming a new government in the state.
Also Read: How to name them? Where will HQ be? Why Jagan’s move to double AP districts has sparked protests
The ‘3 capitals’ plan
In 2014, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act was passed by Parliament, leading to the creation of a new state — Telangana.
In the same year, Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act (APCRDA Act) was passed. Under Section 5 of this Act, Hyderabad was named as the common capital of Telangana and Andhra for a period of 10 years, and after the expiry of this term, Hyderabad would remain Telangana’s capital, while Andhra would have a new capital.
The TDP regime had proposed Amaravati as Andhra’s new capital under the APCRDA Act. However, in 2020, the new government formed under Jagan the previous year brought in two laws to establish three capitals instead of one — Amaravati, Visakhapatnam and Kurnool.
Both laws were cleared by the state legislature, leading to a spate of petitions in the high court.
What the petitioners said
In all, 62 petitions were filed, raising several issues before the HC, including challenging the constitutional validity of the ‘three capitals’ laws.
The petitioners — many of whom were farmers — also claimed the state had violated a statutory promise to develop a new capital and therefore, infringed their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Although the state had withdrawn the two laws in November 2021, the court continued to hear the cases, with the petitioners seeking a declaration that the legislature was not competent to pass such a law.
The petitioners pointed to the ‘statement of objects and reasons’ of the Act brought in by Jagan Reddy, by which the two laws were repealed, and showed that the state reserved its right to introduce a similar bill again for decentralisation of administration.
Therefore, they argued that the issue pending before the court was not merely academic, as was argued by the state, but a “real threat”.
Furthermore, statements of the chief minister were placed before the court to emphasise that the state government was committed to decentralising development and also have multiple capitals.
‘Since intention to decentralise is clear, court’s duty to act now’
Taking into account that the government had reserved its right to re-introduce the bill after “extensive consultation”, the court considered it fit to render a finding on the state legislature’s competence to enact such laws.
“Thereafter, it is clear that the intention of the present government is to go forward with the concept of decentralised capitals or multiple capitals. Since this intention is clear and it is likely to manifest itself in the form of a new Act, this court is of the opinion that it has a duty and also the jurisdiction to act now itself,” the bench said.
It applied the principles laid down in the Mangal Singh versus Union of India judgment by the Supreme Court and observed: “It is clear Parliament alone is competent to deal with setting up of legislature, executive and judicial organs of the state and it is implicit in the language employed in Article 4 of the Constitution.”
While Article 2 says Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, Article 4 allows for consequential changes in the names of the states.
It further said that approval of the APCRDA Act, 2014, taking up land under the Land Pooling Scheme framed under the law, payment of Rs 15,000 crore for capital city and region development shows that Parliament delegated power to the state under the Constitution, but this was a one-time delegation.
‘Can’t sit as silent spectator’
The bench also noted that the farmers in Amaravati area had surrendered their lands with a hope they would be allotted reconstituted plots in a thriving urban city and their lifestyles would change for the better.
The documents filed in court showed that around 29,754 farmers pooled 33,771 acres of land “with a hope that they would get reconstituted plots and also all other benefits”. They were also promised that they would be living in a people’s capital which would be a sprawling metropolis generating income for them in the present and future.
A survey that was part of the documents presented reflected that 93 per cent of the farmers who gave up their lands are marginal farmers who are not highly educated.
“The traditional/ancestral agrarian economy based upon multiple crops in fertile soil fed by the river waters has been given up with the hope that they would be living in a modern city,” the bench said, adding that the court cannot be a silent spectator when the livelihood of farmers is being taken away and their right to life and livelihood is infringed.
It, therefore, went on to accept the petitioners’ argument that the state had failed to keep up its promise to them to develop and construct Amaravati city.
The court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and issued a continuous mandamus to the state. It refrained the state from alienating or mortgaging or creating any third-party interest on the land pooled, except for the construction of capital city or development of the region.
The court fixed a deadline of one month to provide basic amenities such as roads, drinking water, drainage and electricity in terms of the 2014 Act and the Land Pooling Rules, 2015.
The state was further directed to complete the town planning schemes as per the Act, and hand over the developed reconstituted plots in the Amaravati capital region to the landholders who surrendered their land, within three months from Thursday, 3 March.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: From first seeds sown by traders to tribals’ cash crop: How Andhra became a ganja hub