Vijayawada, March 16, 2022: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions in the much-awaited Amaravati capital case, ruling that reneging on the promise of developing the megapolis amounts to a violation of fundamental rights of the farmers who had surrendered lands for the purpose. Quoting extensively from several judgments, and citing doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, it held that the agreement between the farmers and the Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) is statutory in nature according to the reports published in newindianexpress.com.
In further relief to the landowners, the court directed the government to complete infrastructure development within six months without deviating from the master plan and return developed plots within three months. It was of the view that since Rs 15,000 crore had already been spent, and works worth Rs 32,000 crore grounded, abandoning them midway would cause economic distress to the state. In this context, the court rejected the government’s excuse of paucity of funds. This judgment was more or less expected, especially after the government had withdrawn its three-capital bills. Nonetheless, the verdict has other dimensions that have the potential to cause a rupture between the judiciary and legislature. In its 307-page order, the court significantly ruled that the state legislature has no “legislative competence” to relocate the capital. Drawing from Articles 3 and 4, it clarified that only Parliament has such authority. Interestingly, it pointed out that the Constitution is silent with regard to the power of the Parliament or the state to fix the capital on bifurcation/separation and held that consequently, it is the court’s duty to interpret the same. Similarly, it found merit in the argument that the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, by which Telangana was separated from Andhra Pradesh specified only “a” new capital for the latter—meaning Parliament intended only one capital for the state!
Another aspect is that the court ruled against the three-capitals proposal despite the fact that the government had withdrawn the bills on the ground that its revival was imminent. Can a court decide on non-existent legislation?
Is its take on legislative competence tenable? These are surely contentious. The Amaravati verdict has far-reaching implications well beyond Andhra.
