Whether a High Court can compel a state government to adopt a uniform policy when the state claims it has unfettered discretion to choose its own policy course on a subject within its legislative domain.
Aaj is debate mein hum ek bahut hi mahatvapoorn constitutional sawaal par vichar karenge — kya State Government ko apna policy course chunne mein absolute discretion prapt hai, ya is discretion ki koi seema hoti hai? Dono taraf ke counsel apne paksh rakhenge, aur main ummeed karti hoon ki yeh ek samajhdaar, tathya-aadharit charcha hogi. Toh, Counsel Aarav, aap shuru karein — apna paksh Court ke saamne rakhein.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne ka adhikar ek fundamental constitutional reality hai — federalism ka poora structure is discretion par tika hua hai. Har State ki apni alag zaroorate hain, alag local conditions hain, aur wahi government jo un logon ke beech kaam karti hai, unke liye sabse behtar policy ka nirnay kar sakti hai — koi central diktat nahi. Isliye main maanta hoon ki is motion ka paksh lena sirf sahi nahi, balki constitutionally inevitable bhi hai.
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki 'absolute discretion' jaisi koi cheez hamare constitutional framework mein exist hi nahi karti. State ki policy-making shakti sada fundamental rights, directive principles, aur judicial review ke daayare mein bound rehti hai — aur yahi binding limitation paksh ki core claim ko ground par hi khatam karti hai.
My lord, vipaksh yeh bhool jaata hai ki 'absolute discretion' ka matlab yeh nahi ki State apni marzi se kuch bhi kar sakta hai — hamara samvidhan ek cooperative federalism ka dhanche par khada hai, jisme State ki policy-making power real hai, lekin wo bounded hai — fundamental rights, directive principles, aur constitutional morality se. Main yeh maanta hoon ki State ko apna policy course chunne ki sachchi swatantrata honi chahiye, lekin 'absolute' ka dawa karna samvidhan ki rooh ke khilaaf hai — aur yahi is motion ka sabse bada flaw hai.
My lord, paksh ne jo 'absolute discretion' ki baat ki hai, woh constitutionally ek hollow claim hai — kyunki koi bhi State power tab tak 'absolute' nahi ho sakti jab tak woh fundamental rights, federal structure, aur constitutional morality ke dayre mein rahe. Main yahan koi specific statutory authority cite nahi kar sakti, lekin yeh constitutional principle itna settled hai ki discretion ka matlab unreviewable authority kabhi nahi hota — aur isi liye vipaksh ka stand hai ki 'absolute discretion' ek dangerous fiction hai jo separation of powers ko hi tod deta hai. Isliye, my lord, is motion ko reject kiya jaana chahiye.
Ek taraf, Petitioner ki daleel hai ki State ko apni policy chunne ki poori azaadi hai — yeh executive discretion ka mool adhikar hai. Doosri taraf, Respondent ka kehna hai ki yeh discretion absolute nahi ho sakta — Constitutional limits, fundamental rights, aur rule of law iske upar uthke khade hain. Main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti kyunki is debate mein koi verified authority supply nahi ki gayi, lekin meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: State ko wide policy discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion 'absolute' tab nahi rehti jab woh nagrik ke adhikaron ko tod ke ya Constitutional mandate ko todkar chal rahi ho — toh citizens aur legislature dono ko iske liye jawabdehi ka ek niyamit zariya milna chahiye. Aap sab se gujarish hai ki aaj ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay dein — kyunki yeh legal jagrukta aap ke liye hai, kisi ek paksh ki jeet ke liye nahi.