E-Paper
Andhra plans to oppose HC verdict on 3-capital plan in state assembly
The YSRCP is likely to serve a notice to assembly speaker Tammineni Sitaram on the first day of the state’s budget session starting on Monday, seeking a debate on the powers of the legislature to enact laws vis-à-vis the powers of the judiciary in interfering in legislative functions.
Days after the Andhra Pradesh high court ordered Amaravati’s development as the state capital, and ruled that the legislature has no right to enact a fresh law on three capitals, the ruling YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) will protest the “undue interference” of the judiciary in legislative matters, party leaders said.
The YSRCP is likely to serve a notice to assembly speaker Tammineni Sitaram on the first day of the state’s budget session starting on Monday, seeking a debate on the powers of the legislature to enact laws vis-à-vis the powers of the judiciary in interfering in legislative functions.
“We shall take it up with the speaker during the business advisory committee meeting to be held on Monday and ask for a thorough debate on whether the courts can curtail the powers of the legislature to enact laws. We hope we shall have a detailed discussion on the issue,” the party’s chief whip G Srikanth Reddy told HT.
“There is something called the people’s mandate, which the courts need to respect,” Reddy said. “We came to power with a massive mandate from the people and we have the responsibility to function as per their aspirations.”
There was, however, no possibility of the state government enacting the legislation on three capitals in the budget session, unless it obtained a stay order from the Supreme Court on the high court’s judgment, he said. “We are discussing with legal experts on approaching the apex court.”
On Thursday, the high court ruled that the state assembly did not have the power to make further laws on establishing the capital city.
“Amaravati should be developed as the capital city of the state. Within three months, the plots allotted to the stakeholders should be developed and infrastructure facilities should be created for the plots within three months,” the court ruled. “The state assembly has no powers to make any further laws on the capital city. No office should be shifted from Amaravati to any other place.”
In a letter to the chief minister, YSRCP lawmaker and former minister Dharmana Prasada Rao on Saturday said the judgment curtailing the lawmaking competence of the assembly and the policymaking power of the government has caused him deep anguish.
“The judgment questions the existence and relevance of legislature and executive as constitutional institutions. The ‘doctrine of separation of powers’, enshrined in the Constitution, balances the powers of legislature, executive and judiciary to achieve the constitutional goals,” he wrote.
The judgment diluted the “legislature and executive” as institutions and questioned their very existence, he said. “The legislators directly elected by the people cannot remain mute spectators to continue the mistakes committed by their predecessors,” Rao said, referring to the previous government’s decision to build the capital of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati.
The YSRCP leader requested that a special session of the assembly be convened to discuss on separation of powers of the constitutional bodies.
State municipal administration minister Botsa Satyanarayana, too, endorsed this view and said the state assembly had powers to enact any laws. “We are committed to creation of three capital cities for decentralisation of administration and development. We shall stand by our chief minister’s thoughts in this regard,” he said.
The opposition Telugu Desam Party (TDP), however, said the court judgment did not question the powers of the legislature to make laws.
“It only said with regard to the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, only Parliament has the right to make any such laws to change or divide the capital, and not the state legislature. Any laws made by the state legislature should be within the limits of the Constitution, not against it,” said Yanamala Ramakrishnudu, TDP politburo member and former legislative affairs minister.
(Can we get a quote from any constitutional expert on the subject? What the rules say and what options do the legislative have in such issues?)
