Legally speaking, why Andhra HC ‘1 capital’ verdict could end Jagan’s ‘decentralisation’ dream

Last week, Andhra HC declared state did not have 'legislative competence' to establish 3 capitals, and ordered govt to develop Amaravati as the sole capital city within 6 months.

File image of Andhra Pradesh CM Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy | Photo: ANI

New Delhi: The last few days have been a real downer for Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy, as far as his quest to establish three capitals for the state goes.

Last week, the Andhra Pradesh High Court declared that the state government did not have the “legislative competence” to establish Amaravati, Visakhapatnam and Kurnool as the state’s legislative, executive and judicial capitals respectively. Instead, it ordered the government to develop Amaravati as the sole capital city within six months.

Then, this Monday, Governor Biswabhusan Harichandan signalled an acceptance of this when he avoided any mention of the three capitals during his customary address to the Andhra Pradesh legislative council and assembly on the first day of the Budget session —  unlike on the two previous occasions.

The governor’s only nod to Jagan’s pet project of decentralising the administration was a statement about restructuring 13 districts in the state to 26 to meet the “objective of decentralised and good governance”.

Jagan may not be quite ready to give up so quickly on his vision for “decentralisation” in the form of three capitals, but reviving it may be tough after the HC’s 3 March blow.

The project, it is worth noting, had been stalled due to 60 petitions in the HC challenging the move, but there was hope until the court unequivocally ruled that the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, passed by Parliament to create Telangana, and the subsequent Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act (APCRDA), 2014, envisaged only one capital for the state: Amaravati.

So far, the state has maintained that it is still committed to decentralisation and some leaders have made noises about approaching the Supreme Court, but there is little doubt that the government is aware that it is legally on weak ground.

ThePrint explains why the HC judgement could be the end of the Jagan Reddy government’s ambitious plans for decentralisation.

Two Bills, three capitals

The Parliament enacted the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, under Article 3 of the Constitution of India, to divide the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and the new Andhra Pradesh.

Section 5 of this Act stipulated that Hyderabad would be the common capital of the successor States for 10 years and, thereafter, a new capital would be created for Andhra Pradesh.

Following this, the Centre constituted the Sivaramakrishnan Committee to study alternatives for the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. After considering this committee’s report, the AP assembly on 4 September 2014 passed the APCRDA for a new capital in the Vijayawada-Guntur region.

However, after Jagan Reddy came to power in January 2020, the state assembly repealed APCRDA — which designated Amaravati as the capital — and passed the AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020. As a result, the state capital would be split into three — with the executive in Visakhapatnam, legislature in Amaravati and judiciary in Kurnool.

There was immediate pushback. Dozens of petitioners, mostly farmers, challenged the move in the HC. Meanwhile, a stop was put to all development work undertaken by the previous Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in the designated capital area.

Then, in November 2021, the Andhra government repealed its ‘three capitals laws’ — namely the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Repeal Act, 2020, and the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020 — and promised to put forth a “better version” and also get buy-in from opponents of the idea.

Petitioners’ argument on constitutional position

According to the petitioners, Parliament enacted the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, in exercise of power conferred under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India, which pertain to the creation of new states.

Article 3 provides for Parliament to make a law to form new states, and also to alter the areas, boundaries, or names of existing states.

Article 4 allows for consequential changes in the First Schedule of the Constitution, that is, the name of the states, and in the Fourth Schedule, which is the number of seats allotted in the Rajya Sabha for each state.

Therefore, Article 4, petitioners added, empowers Parliament to make supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions as well and this would include creation of a new capital.

The petitioners argued the plenary power to Parliament is independent of the powers enumerated under Article 246, which deals with the jurisdiction of Parliament and state assembly to frame laws.

The court was told that the state assembly lacked legislative competence to shift the capital under the delegated powers of the AP Reorganisation Act, which only gives limited power to the state to alter the name, area, and boundaries of a district.

The state’s argument

The Andhra government tried to dissuade the HC from delivering a judgement on the issue of legislative competence, as any decision on this question would be merely academic because the laws under challenge were repealed.

Three high-powered committees, including one by the Boston Consultancy Group, supported decentralisation and, hence, the decision was taken, the advocate-general told the court.

On its legislative competence, the state said it was obligated under Article 38 of the Directive Principles of State Policy to eliminate regional imbalances and that decentralisation would be a step in this direction.

The state also contested the petitioners’ interpretation of the AP Reorganisation Act. According to the government, the act never specified there should be a “single” capital for Andhra Pradesh.

Use of ‘the’ in Reorganisation Act means only one capital

The HC carefully analysed the language used in sections 5 and 6 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, and noted that the use of the words “a” and “the” for the capital indicated that there should be just one.

While in Section 5 (2) it is mandated “there shall be a new capital for the state of Andhra Pradesh”, Section 6 states the central government shall constitute an expert committee to study the alternatives regarding “the” new capital for the successor state of Andhra Pradesh.

The HC referred to Black’s Law Dictionary and a Supreme Court judgment to conclude that use of “the” is always to denote one specific thing.

The court further noted that Section 94 of the Reorganisation Act bound the Centre to provide special financial support to create essential facilities in “the” new capital of the successor state.

The HC held that if the state wants to change the capital, it cannot do so unilaterally but must make a representation to the Centre or Parliament to amend the AP State Reorganisation Act.

With reference to the power to legislate, the court said this is apart from the independent power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Articles 2, 3 and 4.

HC seat cannot be moved

In the Decentralisation Act, a proposal was made to shift the judicial capital to Kurnool, making it the seat of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court, in its judgment, rejected this categorially and noted that under the Reorganisation Act, only the President of India can notify the principal seat of the HC, which has already been done.

The foundation stone for the HC complex at Amaravati was laid in 2019 by then-Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in February 2019.

(Edited by Asavari Singh)