There is no stipulation in the law requiring Andhra Pradesh to have only one capital, the Center told the Andhra Pradesh high court on Thursday in an affidavit supporting the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government’s three-capital plan.
Prime Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy’s plan has run counter to the plan of his predecessor, Chandrababu Naidu, of the Telugu Desam Party, who had named Amaravati as the state capital after Hyderabad went to Telangana. Several petitions were also filed in the higher court against the measure.
In an affidavit filed by the Union Ministry of the Interior, the Center denied claims that a three-capital plan was a violation of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act 2014 that created a separate state of Telangana outside Andhra Pradesh. .
Lalita T Hedaoo, Undersecretary of the Union Ministry of the Interior, refuted the argument of one of the petitioners that Andhra could not have three capitals because the PA Reorganization Law of 2014 mentioned “a capital for the state of Andhra Pradesh” and not “capitals”.
He noted Section 13 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 which clarifies that in all central Laws and regulations, words in the singular will include the plural and vice versa, unless there is something disgusting in the subject or context.
“It is clearly mentioned in the Law that the words that matter to the masculine gender will be understood included for women; and words in the singular will include the plural and vice versa. Therefore, the petitioner’s interpretation of the matter is superficial, ”Hedaoo told the higher court in the affidavit.
Jagan Mohan Reddy’s three-capital plan envisages executive capital in Visakhapatnam, legislative in Amaravati and judicial in Kurnool. In an interview with HT this week, the prime minister said that he was essentially distributing functions to different locations rather than concentrating them in one location. “If you put all your eggs in one basket, you are going to suffer,” he said.
Also read: We are in the process of rebuilding Andhra: Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy
On the argument that the Center only awarded grants for the development of the capital city in Amaravati, the official said that the Center had extended financial assistance to AP for the creation of essential facilities in its new capital, such as Secretary, Raj Bhavan, Tribunal Superior, etc. and to further facilitate the denotation of degraded forest lands, if necessary, for them.
“This provision is only to extend financial assistance to the capital city, but not to decide its location,” he clarified.
Hedaoo also said that under Article 3 of the Constitution of India, there is only one provision for the creation of new states and other related matters. No provision on capital is established in this article.
The MHA official refuted the argument that the Center had endorsed Amaravati as the capital city by locating the state high court under the presidential order. He clarified that there is no provision in the law that says that the main seat of the high court must also be in the capital city.
“The notification of the President’s order concerning the establishment of an independent High Court for Andhra Pradesh with its main seat in Amaravati by the Center cannot be interpreted as the decision of the Central Government to declare Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh, as the The main seat of the Superior Court is not necessarily in the capital city of the state, ”he stated.
In a previous affidavit, too, the MHA official made it clear that the Center had no role in the location or relocation of the state capital. “It is completely the prerogative of the state government to decide where the capital city of the state should be located,” he said.
.
