Rajdhani Verdict: The Hindu Editorial on AP High Court’s decision on Amaravati

A change in policies with governments may seem acceptable in a democracy, but no court would allow such a fundamental change that the rights and rights acquired during the earlier regime were abandoned or discouraged. in 2014, Amaravati region was chosen as the site of the capital of Andhra PradeshThe residual state was left after the creation of Telangana, but was stopped after the current YSRCP regime came to power. Instead, Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy pitched the idea of ​​’decentralised’ development, by which he meant that Amaravati would be the legislative capital in the state, while Visakhapatnam would be the executive capital, and Kurnool would be the seat of the High Court. In a stern rebuke to the present regime’s idea of ​​’three capitals’, a full bench of the state High Court has ruled that it cannot abandon the project to develop Amaravati as the capital city After more than 33,000 acres were abandoned by farmers and ₹15,000 crore was sunk into it on development expenditure. Keeping the state government on its promise to develop the region as the capital city, the government has been directed to complete the necessary development works in Amaravati within six months. As a resultant relief to farmers who have given up their land for a specific purpose, the court has asked the state and the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority to develop the surrendered land and distribute the restructured plots within three months.

Politically, the decision to locate the three organs in separate cities was probably motivated by a desire to undo a major policy measure of the previous TDP regime, as well as the speculative gains made by the then rulers by allegedly choosing Amaravati. was motivated by a desire to deny. However, it was introduced as a measure of decentralization of governance and carrying the fruits of development to all parts of the state. After farmers approached the court, the government sought to nullify the case by repealing its decentralization law, which it had enacted in 2020 to spruce up the capital city and propose ‘inclusive development’ of all regions. However, the Bench took note of the government’s intention to go ahead with its multiple capital city plans and decided that it would decide on the grievances of the petitioners. It was held that the state legislature lacked the ability to transfer the organs of the state. If the Supreme Court does not heed this decision, then efforts to shift the capital out of Amaravati may come to a halt. A welcome feature of the judgment is that it has invoked the principles of constitutional trust and promissory estoppel To prevent the government from reneging on its promises made to the citizens. It sends a message that the regime should not be swayed by the winds of political change or held hostage to the passing whims of a particular regime.