Andhra Pradesh: Govt Moves Supreme Court, Seeks Stay On HC Order Against Three-Capital Plan

The high court on March 3 had directed the state government to develop the Capital city and the Capital region within six months.

Supreme Court of India

Source : Getty Images

New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh government on Saturday filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on the High Court's verdict declaring Amaravati as the only capital city, stalling the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government’s decision to have a three-capital plan for the southern state.

The Andhra High Court had stalled the three-capital plan stating that the state legislature lacked the competence to make any legislation for shifting, bifurcating or trifurcating the capital.

As per reports, the high court on March 3 had directed the state government to develop the Capital city and the Capital region within six months.

According to the government, the move to decentralize its governance and trifurcation of capitals is one of the milestones in pursuit of its commitment towards the people.

The filing of the petitions by the Andhra government is a remedy in law being sought by it to enable further progress to resolve the matter.

The salient grounds of law which are sought to be raised by the State are as under:

1. If a State, re-organised in pursuance of a central legislation under Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution, is held to be without power, to reorganise its capital, it would be destructive of the federal structure of the Constitution.
2. The High Court held that CRDA Act, is a legislation made by the State under Article 258 of the Constitution, which means the State legislated the said Act as a delegate of the Union of India. When the CRDA Act was legislated in 2014, the express text of the Act, shows that the State exercised its powers under List II Entry 5 for constituting a local body. Neither the Union nor the State, said that CRDA legislation is a part of the delegation of the Union. In fact, the Union Government filed an affidavit, that the shifting of capitals is within the domain of the State.
3. The settled position in law in the country is that the power under Article 258 is only relatable to delegation of executive and administrative powers and not the legislative power of the Union.
4. The finding of the High Court is challenged because assuming the CRDA Act is legislated as a delegated power, the delegate did not follow the prescriptions of Section 6 of AP Reorganisation Act, 2014. The location of capital at Amaravati was contrary to the recommendations of the committee appointed under the Central Act. Therefore, the question of law raised is, could a decision taken by a delegate, contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, be affirmed by the High Court?
5. The findings of the High Court about non-compliance with the obligations under the LPS Rules were challenged. The CRDA had already extended the time-frame for compliance with LPS Rules, till 2024 and therefore, there was no cause for adjudication of the dispute by the High Court at the relevant stage.
6. Whether adjudication of an academic issue, that too, about the competence of legislature, a coordinate organ of governance of the State, after the withdrawal of the three-capital legislation, constitutes a breakdown of the principle of separation of powers between various organs of governance, which is a basic structure of the constitution