The Opposition saw this as the Centre backing the TDP plan for Amaravati, but the YSRCP said it was another campaign of falsehoods.
Buildings under construction in Amaravati. (Creative Commons)
The affidavit filed by the Union government on 8 February in the Supreme Court, which is hearing the YS Jagan Mohan Reddy government’s appeal on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order on its three capitals plan, has triggered a fresh bout of political slugfest between the ruling and Opposition parties in the state.
The Opposition reiterated that the Centre, in the affidavit, backed the then TDP government’s decision to locate the state capital at Amaravati as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act and that the state government did not have the legislative competence to either change or trifurcate the capital.
The ruling YSRCP countered it by saying that the Opposition had unleashed yet another campaign of falsehoods.
The Centre, in its 14-page affidavit, indirectly refused to intervene in the issue, stating that the current government had not consulted it while enacting or formulating laws related to the three capitals.
The Supreme Court, on 28 November last year, stayed an order by the state high court that Amaravati’s capital city should be built within a stipulated time and issued notices to the Centre to respond on the matter.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s notice, the Union government stated that there was no reply or response warranted from it at this stage as the Andhra Pradesh government had not consulted the Union government while enacting the two laws related to three capitals.
“Government of Andhra Pradesh enacted the AP Capital Region Development Authority (Repeal) Act, 2020 and Andhra Pradesh Decentralization and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020 and published in a state gazette notification on 31.07.2020 which provided that there shall be three Seats of Governance in the state of Andhra Pradesh viz. Amaravati is Legislative Capital, Visakhapatnam is Executive Capital and Kurnool is Judicial Capital. While enacting/framing the above two acts, the state government has not consulted the central government [sic],” said the Centre in the affidavit filed through the Under-Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Shyamal Kumar Bit.
The affidavit further said: “Therefore, further grounds/issues raised in the present SLP do not concern the Answering Respondent and that the appropriate authority to address the same is the state of Andhra Pradesh. Thus no reply/response is warranted by the Answering Respondent at this stage. However, the Answering Respondent reserves the right to file further response at a later stage if the need arises. [sic]”
The Centre also said in the affidavit that as per the terms of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014, it constituted an expert committee on 28 March, 2014, under the chairmanship of retired IAS officer KC Sivaramakrishnan to study alternatives for a new capital for the state of Andhra Pradesh.
“The said Committee submitted its report on 30.08.2014, laying down broad guidelines required to be considered while selecting the location for new capital. The said report was sent to the government of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action. Subsequently, the government of Andhra Pradesh vide Government Order 23.04.2015 notified that the Capital city be named as ‘Amaravati’ [sic],” said the Centre.
TDP supremo N Chandrababu Naidu on Thursday said that the Centre had clearly stated that the Amaravati capital selection was done as per the reorganisation act.
He claimed that the Andhra Pradesh Assembly now doesn’t have the competence to trifurcate the capital as declared by the high court in its verdict of 2 March last year.
He said any changes to the capital of Andhra Pradesh should be done by the Indian parliament.
However, government advisor and YSRCP general secretary Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy said that the Centre had made it clear in the affidavit that it had no role to play with regard to the formation of the capital city as it concerned the state government.
He added that the Centre had earlier made it clear that it was for the state government to decide on the capital.
The same day, the Centre refused to respond in Parliament to the three-capitals proposal stating that the matter was sub-judice due to the ongoing case hearing in the Supreme Court.
Union Minister of State (MoS) for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai, responding to a question raised by YSRCP member V Vijayasai Reddy, said in the Rajya Sabha that the matter was sub-judice.
Reddy asked whether the Centre unequivocally stated that it was up to the state to decide on its capital and the implication of this stance of the Centre in the wake of the recent verdict of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which disallowed the state government from establishing more than one capital.
The MoS said as per Sections 5 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014, the Centre constituted an expert committee to study alternatives for a new capital for the state of AP and sent its report to state government for necessary action.
“The Andhra Pradesh government issued an order on 23 April, 2015, notifying the capital city of Amaravati,” he said.
Rai added that the state government subsequently enacted the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) (Repeal) Act of 2020 and the Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions (APDIDAR) Act of 2020, which provided that there would be three seats of governance in the state.
The minister added that the state government had not consulted the Centre while enacting the acts.
“The Andhra Pradesh government has filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) against the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter. The matter is currently sub-judice,” the MoS said.
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
May 09, 2024
