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

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 judges

The 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 constitution) of the 2014 Act to submit that the Union government constituted expert committee had taken the opinion of people from across the state as per the Act of 2014.

Thereafter, the Amravati Development project (as per the master plan) came into the picture, he continued, under which, the land of the farmers was taken (under the land pooling scheme), national-international tie-ups were made, however, without implementing the same, or acting upon the same, the Government decided to take away the executive and judicial wing out from the intended capital city.

"The 2020 acts are contradictory and are against the Reorganisation act of 2014 because you could take only one-time decision over the State Capital but you suddenly come up with 2020 act," said Senior Advocate Divan.

He also contended that after the 2019 elections, the State Government changed its plan regarding the capital of the State, however, he did admit that the Act of 2014 doesn't mention any specific location as the State Capital, however, he added that a place which consists of the three wings (Executive, Judicial and Legislature), can only be called as the capital, meaning thereby, that one place could be State Capital.

It was also contended by him that the Governments keep on coming and going, however, the State, as an entity remains constant. Against this backdrop, he submitted that just the new government's 'three capitals' proposal would have serious consequences for the entire country.

He also submitted that by virtue of the land pooling scheme (LPS), there were certain rights that were vested with the farmers who gave up their land, and therefore, such rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily by the State Government.

He also pleaded that the Capital should remain in Amravati, as the farmers of Amravati had a special right regarding that since they gave up their land for the development of the Capital city, and asked the Court to ensure that people get value for their plots, apart from getting annuity for their lands.

Observations made by the Bench

While Senior Advocate continued to call Amravati, the people's capital and argued that the people who gave up their land for the development of the Capital city, have the special rights and the Capital belonged to the people who gave up their land, the Bench led by Chief Justice PK Mishra said that a state capital belongs to all the people in the state, and not just to the people who gave up their lands.

"Like India doesn't belong to the Freedom Fighters only, she belongs to the whole of India. The Capital (of Andhra Pradesh) belongs to the whole of Andhra, not just of 30,000 families who gave up their land", Chief Justice PK Mishra Observed.