Published Jul 11, 2023 | 2:58 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 11, 2023 | 2:58 PM
The Supreme Court of India. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 11 July, said that it would hear in December the Andhra Pradesh government’s challenge to the state high court’s 3 March, 2022, judgement against the setting up of three capitals as a seat of the government, legislature, and the high court, respectively.
The high court, by its judgement, had held Amaravati as the only capital of Andhra Pradesh.
Treating the Andhra Pradesh government’s petition challenging the high court order as a lead matter, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi said that the matter would be heard in December, even though the state government sought an early hearing given the urgency in the matter.
The bench noted that the hearing would require time.
The bench decided to treat the petition as a lead matter after it was told that there were 70 petitioners before the high court and all of them had been made respondents in its petition and the service was complete in respect of them.
The bench was told that even if service was not complete in respect of them in other petitions, they were already in the loop and could be treated as served with notices in other matters as well.
Senior advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, repeatedly urged the bench for an early hearing of the matter, given its urgency.
However, Justice Khanna said that the court could not take it up in August as a five-judge Constitution bench would be hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution that had conferred a special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir and its subsequent bifurcation into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
Justice Khanna is one of the five judges on the Constitution bench. Others are Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant.
Before the matter came to the bench of Justice Khanna and Justice Bela Trivedi, the matter was being heard by a bench of Justice KM Joseph (since retired) and Justice BV Nagarathna.
In the last hearing of the matter on 28 March, the bench of Justice Joseph and Justice Nagarathna posted the matter for hearing on 11 July.
The court noted that there were many senior advocates to argue in the case and they would require time to advance their arguments and the court will be left with no the time to write the judgement as the Supreme Court would have its summer vacations from 21 May to 2 July and Justice Joseph would be retiring on 16 June.
However, Venugopal, representing a battery of senior lawyers including Fali Nariman, and KK Venugopal, CS Vaidyanathan, Shyam Divan and others appearing for different parties, had told the bench that the law that was enacted for the creation of three capitals was withdrawn and all that remained to be argued was the impact of the high court judgement on the principle of separation of powers and the functioning of the state government.
Venugopal had said that such a judgement impacting the principle of separation of powers between the executive legislature and the judiciary should not get repeated.
The Andhra Pradesh government, along with others, have challenged the judgement of the state high court on the proposed three capitals case and had sought a stay on the verdict.
The YSRCP-led government had moved the top court on 17 September, 2022, against the high court judgement that upheld Amaravati as the only capital of Andhra Pradesh.
The Andhra Pradesh government has contended that judgement was an encroachment into the powers of the executive and the legislature.
The Supreme Court in November 2022, stayed the high court’s directions asking the state government to develop Amaravati’s capital city and capital region within 6 months.
While staying the high court order, the bench of Justice Joseph and Justice Nagarathna had said, “Courts cannot become a town planner and chief engineer”.
The top court found the directions issued by the high court overstepped the “separation of power” principle.
