The Centre has yet again told the Andhra Pradesh High Court that it cannot intervene in the matter of trifurcation of the state capital. On Thursday, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) filed an additional affidavit file in the HC in the ongoing litigation against the state government’s move to have three capitals for Andhra Pradesh.
The affidavit said that the 'a' in the phrase "a capital for the state of Andhra Pradesh" might also be taken in plural, and not necessarily in singular, in accordance with the General Clauses Act, 189. It also said that the interpretation made by a petitioner, challenging the AP government's move to have three capitals for the state, was "shallow."
The MHA referred to the petitioner’s contention that the phrase "a capital for the state of Andhra Pradesh", under Section 6 and Section 94 (3) and (4) of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, read with the 13th Schedule, connotes that the Act mandated a single capital city.
Countering it, the MHA cited the General Clauses Act, 1897, saying as per Section 13 in all Central Acts and regulations, "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context," words in the singular "shall include the plural and vice versa."
The Centre also said the "repeated objectionable and uncalled for aspersions against the Union of India" in the rejoinder submitted by the writ petitioner was condemnable.
The HC is currently hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by various stakeholders seeking that the AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020, be declared as ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
The court, while ordering a status quo on the implementation of the Act and also the AP Capital Region Development Authority (Repeal) Act, 2020, posted the case for further hearing to September 21.
The MHA also said that the notification of the President's order on the constitution of a separate High Court for AP, with the principal seat at Amaravati, could not be construed as the Central Government's decision to declare Amaravati as the Capital of the state. The principal seat of High Court need not necessarily be in the Capital city of the state, the Centre maintained.
The MHA had already filed a counter affidavit last month stating that the capital city of a state is decided by the respective state government, and that the Central government has no role in it. The MHA had also said that the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 only provides for financial assistance by the Central government to the state, for creation of essential facilities in their new capital and to further facilitate de-notification of degraded forest land, if necessary, for the same.