The Union government has asserted that Section 94 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act-2014 (APRA) only provides for extending financial assistance for the new capital chosen by Andhra Pradesh and not for deciding a capital.
Referring to the argument that the phrase “a capital for the State of A.P.” contained in Sections 6 and 94 (3) and (4) read with 13th Schedule of APRA connotes that the Act mandated a single capital city, the Centre submitted to the court that Section 13 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 makes it clear that in all Central Acts and regulations, words in the singular includes the plural and vice-versa unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.
Also read: A.P. HC stays operation of three-capital Act
In an additional affidavit filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in response to a PIL filed against the A.P. Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, Ministry of Home Affairs Under-Secretary Lalita T. Hedaoo further stated that the law was unambiguous on the issue of capital of Andhra Pradesh, but the Government had decided to shift from the common capital (Hyderabad) before the expiry of 10 years provided in Section.5 of APRA and notified its capital on April 23, 2015, on whose basis the Survey of India incorporated Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh in the latest political map of India.
Also read: Three capitals for decentralised administration: A.P. Governor
The Centre informed that the Presidential notification through which the principal seat of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was established in Amaravati could not be construed as its decision to declare Amaravati as the capital of Andhra Pradesh as the principal seat of High Court need not necessarily be in the capital city of the State.
Article 3 of the Constitution of India had no provision in respect of capital, it only envisaged the creation of new States and other related matters, Ms. Hedaoo pointed out.
