AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 mandates notification of the AP State Capital

AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 mandates notification of the AP State Capital, in the absence of which any further action including investment in the capital city would be prima facie illegal

To

Shri Neerabh Kumar Prasad

Chief Secretary

Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dear Shri Prasad,

I invite your attention to Sections 5 & 6 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 (enacted on 1-3-2014), extracts of which are as follows:

“5. Hyderabad to be common capital for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.––(1) On and from the appointed day, Hyderabad in the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, shall be the common capital of the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh for such period not exceeding ten years. 

(2) After expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1), Hyderabad shall be the capital of the State of Telangana and there shall be a new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 

Explanation.––In this Part, the common capital includes the existing area notified as the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (Hyderabad Act No. 2 of 1956). 

6. Expert Committee for setting up of a capital for Andhra Pradesh.—The Central Government shall constitute an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding the new capital for the successor State of Andhra Pradesh and make appropriate recommendations in a period not exceeding six months from the date of enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014“

In terms of Section 5, therefore, as of today, Hyderabad can no longer be deemed to be the “common capital” of the two successor States and, as on date, in the absence of a formal notification of the location of the capital city of AP, Amaravati cannot be legally deemed to be the State’s capital. Any expenditure on Amaravati and any administrative, financial and statutory measure taken in the name of that city as the State’s capital would therefore be prima facie illegal, unless the State Government goes through the process of getting the State Assembly passing a resolution on selecting Amaravati as the capital, seeking a notification to that effect issued by the Union Home Ministry and the latter notifying Amaravati as the State’s capital, after going through the necessary legal process of obtaining approval from the Parliament and getting Presidential assent. 

Under Section 6 of the Act, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) appointed a committee headed by Shri Sivaramakrishnan (hitherto referred as the Committee) to recommend to it the location of AP’s capital keeping in view such important considerations as “least possible dislocation‘ of people and their activities, “preservation of local ecology and natural features including water bodies“, “vulnerability to floods“, “minimum cost” of construction and of acquisition of land and so on. The Committee thus appointed made a comprehensive assessment of the above cited aspects and indicated the possible alternatives (https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/ExpertCommittee_CapitalAP_Final_0%5B1%5D_0%5B1%5D.pdf) from which the Centre could decide in consultation with the State. Since the choice of a location for the capital of the State has long-term implications for its people, one would expect the Centre and the State to hold consultation with all political parties and the public at large.

Instead of considering the Committee’s recommendations, as it ought to have, the then TDP government (2014-19) ignored its recommendations altogether, unilaterally decided that Amaravati would be the capital city and undertook massive investments on it, without it being duly notified under the Act. The choice of the location had implications from the point of view of the local ecology and the statutory rights of displaced persons, which led to cases being filed before the Hon’ble AP High Court and the National Green Tribunal, whose directions are yet to be complied with by the government.

The successor government under the YSRC (2019-24), equally unilaterally, abandoned Amaravati and decided to locate the administrative capital of the State at Visakhapatnam, once again ignoring the Committee’s recommendations. The choice of the new location of the administrative capital raised serious environmental concerns forcing some citizens to contest it before the Hon’ble AP High Court, whose decisions are yet to be implemented.

YSRC has since been voted out and a coalition of TDP & Jana Sena (JS) have since come to power in the State. Once again, the new TDP-JS coalition has revoked its predecessor’s decision, unilaterally restored the idea of the capital city being located at Amaravati and started making financial and other commitments on it.

In the process, as a result of the uncertainty that prevailed during 2019 to 2024, those farmers who trusted the then government and parted with their lands in Amaravati in the hope of getting developed plots of adequate value as compensation have been put to enormous loss, violating the principle of natural justice that no person could be dispossessed of land without actual payment of adequate compensation.

The earlier decision of the TDP-led government, the later decision of its successor and the latest TDP-JS government’s decision are neither in compliance with the Sivaraman Committee’s recommendations nor have they any legal sanction under the Act. Therefore, unless the State government goes through the required legal process of getting the location of the capital notified under the Act, it should not make any commitments, financial or otherwise, in the name of such a capital city.

The choice of the location of a capital city has long-term implications for the people of the State and flip-flop decisions on it by successive governments have considerably hurt the public interest. Even today, there is no guarantee for the people of the State that the future governments will reverse these decisions again and again. Settling political scores by different political parties should not be permitted to harm people’s interests.

While the Union Finance Minister had announced that multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank would provide assistance to the tune of over Rs 15,000 crores to AP for building its capital city, there have been statements made by responsible Ministers of the State that the State proposes to spend more than Rs 50,000 crores on Amaravati over the next 30 months, raising serious concerns of the likely adverse impact on regional equity, due to such massive infusion of public resources over such a short span of time within the narrow confines of one single district at the expense of others, as it would divert scarce fiscal resources from the two backward regions of the State, namely, north coastal AP and Rayalaseema, to the Amaravati region, without the State caring to take corrective measures to do justice to the two backward regions, considering that both north coastal AP and Rayalaseema make significant contributions to the State’s resources, a substantial portion of which would be diverted to Amaravati.

In this connection, I refer to my letter of 27th August, 2024 addressed to the Union Finance Minister seeking special financial assistance to the two regions, recognised as “backward” by Niti Ayog (https://countercurrents.org/2024/08/request-special-financial-package-for-north-andhra-and-rayalaseema-as-provided-under-the-ap-state-reorganisation-act-2014/). 

Till date, to the best of my knowledge, the State government has neither announced a package of assistance to create productive assets in north coastal AP and Rayalaseema nor has it taken up the matter of a special financial assistance package for those regions with the Centre. 

The above cited concern of regional equity makes it all the more important for the State government to be in compliance with the requirement of the AP Reorganisation Act of submitting a proposal to the MHA on the location of the capital city of the State and awaiting a formal notification being issued on that basis by the Centre. In addition, the State government is under an obligation to correct the consequent regional imbalance by making investments on productive assets, especially to benefit disadvantaged sections of the two backward regions. In my view, it would be highly imprudent on the part of the State government to ignore it and proceed to make investments on Amaravati without caring to go through the necessary legal process and without caring to respect the feelings of the people of north coastal AP and Rayalaseema.

I am marking a copy of this letter to the Union Finance Minister, the Comptroller & Auditor General of India (C&AG), the Union Cabinet Secretary and the Union Home Secretary for information and appropriate action.

Regards,

Yours sincerely,

E A S Sarma

Former Secretary to the Government of India

Visakhapatnam