SC sets Nov. 28 date to hear AP govt petition on three capitals

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday set November 28 as the date to hear a batch of petitions, including those of the Andhra Pradesh government, challenging the AP High Court’s March 2022 judgment holding the state legislature not competent to enact a law to create more than one seat of the state capital.

A bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was informed by former Attorney General and senior lawyer K.K. Venugopal that the state was aggrieved by the HC holding that the legislature lacked the competence to shift, bifurcate or trifurcate the seat of the legislature, judiciary and the executive.

Venugopal questioned whether the HC was competent to say that no law in this regard could be passed in the future.

As noted by the top court, there are 36 matters in all — 28 relating to issues rooted in the law bifurcating the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh into two, and eight relating to the HC’s March 3, 2022 judgment.

The court on Monday that in the case of 28 petitions relating to the bifurcation of the state, notices were issued, but in the case of eight petitions relating to the HC judgment, no notice was issued.

In the course of the hearing, it was suggested to the court that the petitions rooted in Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act be de-tagged from those concerning the High Court judgment.

Andhra Pradesh, in its petition, contended that the High Court judgment completely undermined the federal structure of the Constitution by ruling that a state did not have the competence or jurisdiction to determine from where it would carry out its capital functions or to shift, bifurcate or trifurcate the capital.

It further contended that the High Court erred in relying upon the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2021 Repeal Act to conclude that the state would, in future, make suitable legislation for the trifurcation of its capital, and that if such legislation was made, the same would amount to a violation of the principle of legitimate expectation.

Such anticipation on part of the HC was completely uncalled for, the AP government told the top court.