The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently directed the State government to construct and develop Amaravati, the capital city of the state, within six months. This order comes against the backdrop of the AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, 2020, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The bill outlines the state’s plan of having three separate capitals: Visakhapatnam as the executive capital, Amaravati as the legislative capital, and Kurnool as the judicial capital. The government justifies this change as a strategic move towards inclusive growth by facilitating the development of several regions in the state.
The Capital Change Controversy
However, a significant controversy surrounds this decision. It revolves around the acquisition of about 30,000 acres of farmland around Amaravati by the previous Andhra Pradesh government. Farmers who have had their lands acquired are likely to be adversely affected by the shifting capital. To address the controversy, the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Repeal Bill, 2021, which aimed to repeal the prior laws that mandated a three-capital plan for the state, was passed in November 2021. The government has promised to introduce a more comprehensive bill after identifying and rectifying the flaws in the repealed versions.
High Court Ruling on Shifting Capitals
According to the High Court ruling, the State legislature lacks the authority to create legislation for relocating, dividing, or trifurcating the capital. As such, it ordered the Government and the Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) to meet their obligations under the A.P. Capital Regional Development Authority Act and Land Pooling Rules. These obligations involve developing the reclaimable lands belonging to landowners and transferring them back to the owners within three months. The High Court held that the pact signed between the farmers and the CRDA is a statutory contract, and any violation of its terms by the respondents mandates the court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Legal Implications and Interpretations
Article 226 empowers a high court to issue various writs for enforcing citizens’ fundamental rights or for any other purpose. Furthermore, the High Court argued that only the Parliament has the competence to address the establishment of legislature, executive, and judicial organs of the state, as implicit in Article 4 of the Constitution. Article 4 permits changes in the Ist Schedule (names of States in the Union of India) and the IVth Schedule (the number of seats assigned to each state in the Rajya Sabha).
Concerns Regarding Multiple Capital States
Several concerns have been raised about the idea of multiple capital states. One is the challenge of separating the executive and legislative capitals, which could be logistically difficult. In a parliamentary government like India’s, the executive and the legislature functions are closely linked. For instance, administrative officers are needed all the time for bill presentations and minister briefings when the legislative assembly is in session. Even when it’s not, decision-making by the executive frequently requires input from legislators. Separating the capitals may also inconvenience the administration and the people, and prove difficult to implement logistically.
Decentralization: A Possible Way Forward?
Many suggest that the decentralization in the state should occur by strengthening local governments, such as Panchayats and Municipal Corporations, established under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. They argue that multiple capitals should not be exploited for regional development. Instead, areas can be developed by encouraging investments in manufacturing and service sectors, developing infrastructure and socio-cultural institutions, introducing farmer-friendly policies, and making it easier to do business.