Hyderabad HC bifurcation: President's hands tied, say Centre

Hyderabad: The Central and TS governments on Thursday told the Hyderabad High Court that the power of the President of India in notifying the principal seat for the separate High Court for AP has been restricted with the judgment of the court with regard to establishment of separate High Court. The Centre also made it clear that it will not finance establishment of the AP High Court if it is set up outside the state’s territory.

K.M. Nataraj, additional solicitor-general of India and TS advocate-general K. Ramakrishna Reddy, arguing before a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, contended that the judgment of the High Court has to be reviewed as it imposes restrictions on the powers of the President.

The bench was hearing petitions by the TS government and advocate K. Ravinder Reddy seeking review of the order dated May 1, 2015 in which the HC ruled that the constitution of High Court in any part of the TS for the AP, including Hyderabad, would be an action not permitted by law.

Mr Nataraj argued that the court wrongly interpreted Section 31 (2) of the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 and its verdict has taken away the power of the President. In the absence of such power, the President is unable to notify the principal seat of the separate HC for AP, he said.

Justice Bhosale asked Mr Nataraj that if the error was rectified, would the Centre take steps for setting up the AP High Court in Hyderabad on a temporary basis.

Mr Nataraj replied that in the absence of any specific proposal from the AP government to have its High Court in Hyderabad on temporary basis the question was hypothetical.

Justice Bhosale said that “It is a matter of question of law. When the judgment under review is claimed to restrict the powers of the Centre, we have to look into every issue specifically.”

When Mr Nataraj described the struggle between AP and TS for separate High Courts as a fight between sons, Justice Bhosale asked: “Then why the parent (the Centre) is allowing them to fight”. Mr Nataraj said “Our hands are tied with the High Court order.”

Mr Nataraj did not give a categorical reply when Justice Bhosale asked him whether he had any information about the amount earmarked for the High Court and also whether the Centre has complied with the order of the HC prescribing a specific time limit for release of funds, notifying the place of High Court for AP.
Mr Ramakrishna Reddy said that the TS government was very keen that both states have separate High Court as early as possible.  

In view of delay from the Centre and the AP to establish the HC in AP, TS asked the Centre to provide a new building for the HC either for it or for AP in Hyderabad.

AP advocate-general D. Srinivas  contended that there was no need to the review the order as it was passed after adjudication of all the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act and as well as the Constitution.

He claimed that the review petition was not maintainable in view of the finding of the High Court that there was no provision under the law to set up the High Court of a state outside its jurisdiction. Mr Srinivas said that the Centre has to provide financial assistance to AP to set up a separate High Court.

During the course of hearing, Justice Bhosale said, “It appears that AP government has built   more than 2 lakh sq. ft. of temporary accommodation within six months to shift its offices near Amaravati. Is there any such proposal for the HC?”

When the bench sought opinion of  G. Vidyasagar, senior counsel and amicus curie in the case, he said a conjoint reading of Article 214 and Article 366 (14) of the Constitution, the Constitution does not prohibit creation of High Court outside the territory of the state.

D. Prakash Reddy, senior counsel appearing for Mr Ravinder Reddy, submitted that the Reorganisation Act mandates the Centre to provide High Court, Raj Bhavan and Secretariat for the state. While declaring that the hearing of the pleas concluded, the bench reserved its order.