Decentralisation is more about devolution of powers and authority to local government institutions as per the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992-93
By Keerthi Srilakshmi, Ram Charan Thej Keerthi
On 18 September 2022, the Andhra Pradesh government filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging a High Court verdict in the case of Dhanekula Rama Rao & others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & others, delivered on 3 March 2022. The High Court ruled that “in view of the language employed in Article 4 of the Constitution of India setting up of the legislature, executive and the judiciary of the State, which are three organs governing the State is within the powers of Parliament and the State legislature is incompetent to enact any law for setting up those three wings”.
The Andhra Pradesh Government has passed The Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions (APDIDAR) Act, 2020. This came immediately after the High Power Committee report’s approval by the cabinet meeting on the same day in January 2020. Against this backdrop, the government’s plea now in the top court has resurrected the debate on having more than one capital for the State.
Main Objective
The Act’s main objective is to “provide decentralisation of governance and inclusive development of all the regions of the State. It also envisages the establishment of zonal planning and development boards including the provisions for three seats of governance to be called capital(s) in different regions of the State”. The three regions are Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Area to be called the ‘Legislative Capital’; Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Area to be called the ‘Executive Capital’; and Kurnool Urban Development Area as the ‘Judicial Capital’.
The statement of objects and reasons mentions the purpose of the Act is “for distribution of all state functions among all the regions and decentralisation of the various institutions of the State, its departments, its instrumentalities, etc, in its efforts for ensuring balanced and inclusive growth of the State of Andhra Pradesh”.
Decentralisation, both in theory and practice, is supposed to enhance the citizen’s participation in governance, especially the disadvantaged sections of society in the decision-making process. According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) “decentralisation is the restructuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity. Based on such principle, functions (or tasks) are transferred to the lowest institutional or social level that is capable (or potentially capable) of completing them”. The political (devolution), administrative (de-concentration or delegation) and fiscal are the three main types of decentralisation processes.
In this context, it is essential to understand the APDIDAR Act and to analyse its potential in achieving the intended goals and objectives. The motive and intent of the government are in the right place. The government claims that the Act was enacted as per the Expert Committee report on Studying the Alternatives for a New Capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in 2014 under the chairmanship of KS Sivaramakrishnan. One of the main recommendations of the committee is that “regarding a greenfield capital city, the Committee itself is not in favour of creating one for Andhra at this stage”.
Greenfield Capital Cities
The question is whether the three regions are suitable enough to develop greenfield capital cities. It is clear that the expert committee has made recommendations with regard to the greenfield capital city proposed by the then TDP government. The current ruling dispensation has taken into consideration only the capital city but not the green capital city. The Act and the government assume that the separation of three organs of government is one of the ways to bring in decentralised and equitable development to all the regions of the State.
Much has been talked about the geographical distance between these three capital cities and the inherent difficulties to be faced by the citizens, elected representatives, officials and other stakeholders. The financial and time costs are huge in this regard. For this, the government is arguing that due to the development of three capitals in these regions there will be a rise in investments and employment generation.
It is to be understood that decentralisation is not about the separation of institutions of governance from one to multiple locations as enacted in the APDIDAR Act. It is more about the devolution of powers and authority to the local government institutions such as Panchayats and Municipalities as per the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992-93. The Act violates the true spirit of decentralisation as it divides the three organs of the government but not the legislative, executive and judicial devolution of powers to the local government institutions. The Act comes all of sudden; because the YSR Congress Party election manifesto 2019 does not mention the same. Rather it mentioned “integrated and holistic development of all the regions of the state as a true decentralisation”.
Towards Recentralisation
The government has mixed up the development issue with that of decentralisation although the normative framework connects both in an organic way. The separation of three organs to different places augments the de-concentration or delegation. The Act lacks a clear vision for the effective devolution of powers and authority.
To illustrate, the Committee has noted that the “invitation to all other government departments to locate themselves within Guntur and Vijayawada will lead to unplanned and haphazard development”. The government has brought in Visakapatnam in place of Vijayawada as executive capital. It has not reflected upon issues such as departmental coordination and the complexities of implementation of development works.
A crucial point is in the context of a strained relationship between legislature and executive. The geographical separation of both these deepens the fragility and affects the quality of governance and development outcomes. This geographical separation widens the gap between the three organs of government only to recentralise the powers and authority. The Act fails to inculcate the spirit of principles of subsidiarity which is the core of decentralised governance.