AP has not taken steps to build HC despite `500 cr aid

The Centre filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court seeking a separate High Court for Andhra Pradesh has given hope to lawyers of the two Telugu states that their dream of having separate High Courts will be realised soon.

The bifurcation of the court was stuck following the May 1, 2015, ruling of a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court which said that constitution of a High Court for AP in any part of Telangana state would not be permitted by law.

The bench held that under the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014 there was no contemplation, nor did the legislature have any intention, to create the AP High Court temporarily at any place other than the existing one at Hyderabad.

After remaining silent for three years, the Centre challenged the High Court order and told the Supreme Court that the Act placed no bar on bifurcating the High Court pending the construction of a High Court building within the territory of AP.

It also did not place any embargo on bifurcating the existing premises to accommodate the two High Courts, the Centre said.

The Union ministry for law and justice in its affidavit argued that the Hyderabad High Court had erred in holding that the building where the common High Court for the two states is functioning cannot be bifurcated like the Secretariat and other official buildings.

The Telangana state government had informed the High Court that it was prepared to shift to some other premises at Gachibowli. The High Court rejected this proposal and ruled that if the existing building was bifurcated for establishing the HC of AP it would be violative of provision of sub-section (1) of Section 31 of Act, 2014 as the same would amount to constitution of the AP High Court within the territory of Telangana state.

The Union law ministry contended before the Supreme Court that though `500 crore had been released to AP as back as on March 31, 2015, for the construction of buildings for the Raj Bhavan, Secretariat and the High Court, the AP government had not taken effective steps for their construction.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal appearing for the Centre told the apex court that the existing High Court building has a sufficient number of court halls for the two High Courts to function separately. Since the bifurcation Act states that Hyderabad is the common capital for both the states for 10 years, such an arrangement can be made.

Mr Mukul Rohatgi, former attorney general, appearing for the Telangana state government submitted that there were 24 additional court halls in the existing building which could be utilised for the separate High Court. If the AP government was not willing, the Telangana state government was willing to move out.