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 ki debate ka motion hai — 'State Government Has Absolute Discretion To Choose Its Own Policy Course.' Yeh sawaal seedha uthata hai ki kya ek elected State Government apni welfare aur governance policies mein nirbaadh aazadi rakhti hai, ya kuch constitutional seemaayein us discretion ko niyantrit karti hain. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh prastut karein.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki ek State Government, apne log, apna bhugol, aur apni zarooraten sabse behtar jaanti hai — isliye use apni policy choose karne ka poora discretion hona chahiye, yahi federal structure ka asli arth hai. Har State ki economic, social, aur cultural conditions alag hoti hain, aur ek hi central dhaanche mein sab ko fit karna unke saath anyay hoga. Isiliye main maanta hoon ki yeh motion bilkul sahi hai — State ko apne mandate ke anusaar niti banane ki absolute discretion honi chahiye.
My lord, paksh ne jo 'absolute discretion' ki baat ki hai, woh ek khatra hai — kyunki koi bhi discretion jab absolute ho jaati hai, toh woh accountability ke bahar chali jaati hai, aur yahi State governance mein sabse bada constitutional virodhabhаs hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki State ko policy banane ka adhikar hai, lekin 'absolute' shabd is motion ka sabse kamzor hissa hai — kyunki hum ek constitutional democracy mein rehte hain, anarchy mein nahi. Aur jab tak koi verified authority is motion ko ground nahi karti, toh paksh ki baat sirf ek political claim hai, koi legal proposition nahi.
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki State ko apni policy mein poori chhoot milni chahiye — lekin 'absolute discretion' ka matlab yeh nahi ki State kisi bhi direction mein, bina kisi constitutional seema ke, chal sake. Main yeh maanta hoon ki State ko apni zarooraton ke hisaab se niti banane ka adhikar hai, aur isi adhikar ka paksh main le raha hoon — lekin 'absolute' shabd khud hi apni seema mein virodh rakhta hai, kyunki Constitution ka framework hi State ko guided discretion deta hai, unbounded power nahi. Isliye is motion ka sahi paath yeh hai ki State ki policy-making power broad aur meaningful hai, aur main usi broad discretion ke paksh mein khada hoon — kyunki jab tak koi constitutional ukhlanghan nahi, State apni policy ka master khud hota hai.
My lord, Aarav sahab ne jo 'absolute discretion' ka argument diya hai, woh ek dangerous fiction hai — kyunki koi bhi State power constitutional limitations se pare nahi hoti, aur 'absolute' shabd khud apne aap mein ek contradiction hai jab hum federal aur fundamental rights ke framework mein khadey hain. Main yeh maanti hoon ki policy choice mein State ko flexibility milti hai, lekin flexibility aur 'absolute discretion' mein zameen-aasmaan ka fark hai — ek ka matlab prudent governance hai, doosre ka matlab unchecked power. Isliye is motion ka core proposition — ki State ko 'absolute' discretion hai — mujhe poori tarah reject karna hai, kyunki democracy mein koi bhi authority unconditional nahi hoti.
My lord, vipaksh se seedha poochhna chahta hoon — agar State ko 'absolute discretion' hai policy chunne ki, to phir Federal structure ka kya hoga? Constitution ne concurrent aur State list mein jo subjects diye hain, unka purpose yahi hai ki State apne logon ki zaroorat ke hisaab se policy bana sake — yeh discretion constitutionally guaranteed hai, aur ismein central interference hi unconstitutional hogi. Main maanta hoon ki yeh discretion unlimited nahi, lekin vipaksh ki yeh 'kamzori' unhi ke khilaf jaati hai — kyunki 'absolute' shabd ka arth yahan 'primary aur unrestricted within constitutional limits' hai, aur State ki is policy autonomy ko koi bhi external diktat nahi todh sakta.
My lord, paksh ne khud kaha ki State ko apna course choose karne ka adhikar hai — lekin yahi unka sabse bada virodhaabhas hai. Agar discretion 'absolute' hoti, toh Constitutional courts ka existence hi nirarthak ho jaata — kyunki koi bhi check, koi bhi judicial review, koi bhi fundamental rights ka sanrakshan usse rok hi nahi sakta tha. Main samajhti hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka yeh concept khud apna khandan karta hai — aur isliye yeh motion ek aisaa premise par tikha hai jo practically aur constitutionally dono taraf se toot jaata hai.
My lord, main yahan seedha kehna chahta hoon — is motion ka core yeh hai ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne ka poora adhikaar hai, aur ise koi bhi central diktat ya judicial overreach restrict nahi kar sakta. Is debate mein mujhe koi specific statute ya precedent cite nahi karna chahiye kyunki koi verified authority supply nahi ki gayi hai — lekin constitutional principle bilkul clear hai: federalism aur separation of powers ke antargat, State Legislature aur State Executive apne domain mein sovereign hain, aur yahi is motion ka sabse mazboot aadhar hai. Main is paksh par committed hoon ki agar koi policy State List ke subject par bani hai, to usmein discretion State ka apna haq hai.
My lord, main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti — lekin principle ki baat karun to 'absolute discretion' jaisi koi cheez constitutional framework mein exist hi nahi karti. State ki policy power hamesha fundamental rights, directive principles, aur constitutional limitations ke under confined rehti hai — isliye yeh motion apne aap mein ek fallacy hai, aur main iska poora vipaksh karti hoon.
My lord, ek practical edge-case suniye — maan lijiye ek State Government decide karti hai ki apne agricultural zones mein organic farming policy laagu karegi, jisme chemical fertilizer subsidies band kar ke kisaanon ko direct procurement support diya jaayega. Central scheme se yeh alag hai, lekin State ki local soil conditions aur farming patterns ke hisaab se yeh policy bilkul justified hai. Agar hum yeh maanein ki State ka discretion 'absolute' nahi — to koi bhi aise local, context-specific policy decision ko sirf is aadhar par challenge kar sakta hai ki woh Central policy se alag hai — yahi woh natija hai jo governance ko paralyze kar deta hai, aur State ki practical problem-solving capacity ko khatam karta hai.
My lord, vipaksh yeh maanti hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka dawa apne aap mein ek constitutional fallacy hai — koi bhi State government itni sweeping powers nahi rakhti ki woh bina legislative backing, bina judicial review, aur bina fundamental rights ke safeguard ke apni marzi chalaye. Ek simple hypothetical lijiye: agar koi State yeh 'policy' le ki ek particular community ko public employment se bahaar rakha jaaye — kya tab bhi hum kahenge ki State ko 'absolute discretion' hai? Jawab saaf hai — nahi, kyunki 'absolute' shabd hi is motion ko galat sabit kar deta hai, aur main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti, lekin constitutional jurisprudence ka samanya siddhant yahi hai ki discretion kabhi unbounded nahi hoti.
My lord, real-world mein dekha jaaye to absolute discretion ka seedha matlab hai — State apni local zarooraton ke hisaab se, bina central interference ke, tailor-made policies bana sakta hai; agricultural State ko industrial State wali one-size-fits-all policy follow karne ki majboori nahi honi chahiye. Yeh policy flexibility hi hai jo effective governance ka aadhar hai — agar har kadam par central diktat aaye, to federal structure meaningless ho jaata hai aur State ki janata unke apne chuney hue representatives se nahi, Delhi se govern hoti hai. Is liye, my lord, main maanta hoon ki State Government ko apna policy course chunne ka poora adhikar hona chahiye — yahi sachcha federalism hai aur yahi loktantra ki bhi aatma hai.
My lord, 'absolute discretion' ki baat karna — yeh phrase khud apne aap mein ek constitutional contradiction hai, kyunki koi bhi State government bina checks ke kaam nahi kar sakti. Agar hum yeh maanein ki State ka policy discretion 'absolute' hai, to is ka seedha consequence yeh hoga ki citizens ke paas koi recourse nahi bachega — naa judicial review, naa accountability, naa transparency — aur yeh democracy ke mool dhaanche ko tod deta hai. Main yahan clearly kehna chahti hoon ki yeh risk sirf theoretical nahi, balki practical bhi hai — 'absolute discretion' ka matlab hoga ki har galat policy decision, har harm, har naainsafi ko bhi State 'apni marzi' keh kar defend kar sakti hai, jo poori tarah se unacceptable hai.
My lord, vipaksh ka sabse mazboot point yeh tha ki judicial review State ke discretion ko check karta hai — lekin main seedha kehna chahta hoon: judicial review ek external constraint hai, woh State ki internal policy-choosing ki power ko khatam nahi karta. State yeh decide karne mein absolute hai ki kaunsi priority chunni hai, kaunsa model apnaana hai — court sirf yeh dekhta hai ki kya process lawful tha, woh yeh nahi likhta ki KAUN SA policy choose karo. Isliye vipaksh ka yeh point core motion ko rebuttal nahi deta — woh ek alag sawaal hai, policy ka nahi, process ka.
My lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ki baat ki — lekin main yeh maanti hoon ki koi bhi discretion, chahe State ki ho ya Centre ki, constitutional morality aur federal balance ke bahar nahi ja sakti; 'absolute' shabd hi apne aap mein ek constitutional impossibility hai. Aur kyunki is turn ke liye koi specific authority mujhe supply nahi ki gayi, main honestly kehna chahungi ki koi statute ya case cite karna mere liye uchit nahi hoga — lekin principle yeh hai ki unrestricted discretion, rule of law ki buniyaad ko hi khokha kar deti hai. Isliye 'absolute' ka dawa vipaksh ki hi kamzori hai, meri nahi — aur main is motion ko poori tarah asweekar karti hoon.
My lord, main ek naya angle rakhna chahta hoon — State Government ka policy discretion sirf ek administrative suvidha nahi hai, yeh ek constitutional necessity hai: federal structure ke bina meaningful democracy hollow ho jaati hai, aur har State ko apne lokaal haalaat ke hisaab se apna raasta chunne ka adhikar usi structure ka aatma hai. Vipaksh jab 'absolute' shabd par hamla karta hai, tab woh yeh bhool jaata hai ki main yeh nahi keh raha ki State unconstitutional kaam kar sakta hai — main keh raha hoon ki constitutional seemaon ke andar, State ki policy choice par kendra ya court dono ki supervisory override nahi chal sakti. Yahi core proposition hai jo main aaj poori debate mein maanta raha hoon aur is nishkarsh se hata nahi hoon.
My lord, main yeh samajhti hoon ki paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ka jo dawa kiya hai, woh ek dangerous illusion hai — kyunki koi bhi state power, chahe woh policy ho ya kuch aur, Constitution ke framework ke bahar nahi ja sakti, aur jab constitutional limits hain, toh 'absolute' shabd hi beimani hai. Vipaksh ka core stand yahi hai ki State ka discretion sada conditional hai — konditioned on constitutional morality, fundamental rights, aur federal balance — naya angle yeh hai ki 'discretion' aur 'absolute discretion' mein zameen-aasmaan ka fark hai, aur paksh yeh fark jaanbujhkar mita raha hai.
My Lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka concept apne aap mein constitutionally unsustainable hai — kyunki koi bhi State power, chahe policy ho ya karyapalika ka faisla, fundamental rights, federalism ke constitutional framework, aur judicial review ke dayire se bahar nahi ja sakti; yeh koi doctrine nahi, yeh constitution ka basic structure hai. Vipaksh agar yeh maanta hai ki State ko unchecked, unbounded policy freedom milni chahiye, to woh ek aisi satta ki baat kar raha hai jo accountable nahi — aur aise State mein naagrik sirf praja ban jaata hai, nahi to citizen. Isliye main poori dridh'ta ke saath kehta hoon ki is motion ko is House ko reject karna chahiye, kyunki 'absolute' aur 'constitutional governance' — yeh do shabd ek saath nahi chal sakte.
My Lord, main yeh saaf kehna chahti hoon — 'absolute discretion' jaisi koi cheez federalism aur constitutionalism ke daayare mein exist hi nahi karti; jo bhi discretion hai, woh conditional hai, bounded hai, aur accountable hai. Paksh ne baar-baar 'policy freedom' ki baat ki, lekin freedom aur unaccountability ek nahi hoti — ek State jo apni har manmani ko 'policy choice' ka naam de sake, woh democracy nahi, woh elected autocracy hai. Isliye main maanti hoon ki is motion ko is House ko — aur publicly — reject karna chahiye, kyunki absolute discretion ka doctrine apne aap mein ek constitutional contradiction hai.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki ek State Government ka policy discretion ek fundamental constitutional reality hai — federalism ka poora dhaacha isi soch par tika hua hai ki alag-alag States apni janata ki zarooraton ke hisaab se apne khud ke policy kurse chun sakti hain. Koi bhi ek-size-fits-all central mandate is democratic plurality ko khatam kar deta hai. Isliye main maanta hoon ki State ko apni policy mein absolute discretion milni hi chahiye.
My lord, main Bina, vipaksh ki taraf se humbly submit karti hoon ki yeh motion — ki State Government ko apna policy course chunne mein absolute discretion hai — yeh ek aisi dangerous misconception hai jo hamari federal aur constitutional structure ki buniyad ko hi hilaa deti hai. 'Absolute' discretion jaisi koi cheez is desh ke constitutional framework mein exist hi nahi karti — State ki har power, har policy, Constitution ke provisions, fundamental rights, aur legislative competence ke aadheen hai. Isliye main kehna chahti hoon ki paksh ki yeh core claim ki State ka discretion 'absolute' hai, yeh legally aur constitutionally tathyahin hai, aur main yeh position firmly maintain karungi.
My lord, vipaksh yeh kehna chahta hai ki State ki policy discretion par koi rokawat nahi — lekin main maanta hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka concept hi ek constitutional contradiction hai. Hamara federal structure, jisme Centre aur State dono ki concurrent aur exclusive lists hain, clearly dikhata hai ki State ki shakti simit aur defined hai, absolute nahi. Isliye main poore paksh ke saath kehta hoon ki State government ko apni policy mein space zaroor hai, lekin woh space 'absolute' nahi ho sakti — kyunki absolute power ka matlab hai zero accountability, aur zero accountability ka matlab hai constitutional democracy ka ant.
My lord, Aarav sahab ne 'discretion' ko 'absolute' kehkar ek constitutional impossibility present ki hai — kyunki koi bhi state power, chahe policy ho ya administration, judicial review se bahir nahi hoti; yeh settled constitutional principle hai, kisi ek statute ka mohtaj nahi. Main samajhti hoon ki paksh yeh kehna chahta hai ki policy-making mein courts dakhalnahi dete — lekin yeh 'no interference' aur 'absolute discretion' mein zameen-aasman ka fark hai, aur is fark ko concede karna main bilkul nahi chahti. Agar discretion sach mein absolute hoti, to welfare schemes mein favouritism, arbitrary exclusion, ya public resources ka durgupyog — sab unchallenged reh jaate, jo kisi bhi democratic constitutional framework mein acceptable nahi ho sakta.
My lord, vipaksh se seedha poochna chahta hoon — agar State ko 'absolute discretion' nahi hai, to phir kaun tay karega ki ek State apni janta ke liye kaunsi welfare scheme chunegi, kaunsi priority rakhegi? Kya Delhi ka model Rajasthan pe thopa jayega? Yeh federalism ka hi gala ghont dena hai. Main maanta hoon ki 'absolute' shabd ka arth 'unchecked' nahi — lekin State ki CORE policy domain mein judicial ya central dakhal minimum honi chahiye, aur is motion ka yahi paksh hai.
My lord, paksh ne khud mana ki 'policy course choose karne ki liberty' hai — lekin yeh liberty aur absolute discretion do alag cheezein hain, aur yahi main kehna chahti hoon. Jab paksh kehte hain 'state ko apna raasta chunne ka adhikar hai,' to woh ek bounded, constitutional framework ke andar ki baat kar rahe hain — unbounded sovereign will ki nahi. Toh unki apni baat unke khilaf jaati hai: agar liberty already limited hai, to 'absolute discretion' ka dawa seedha jhuth sabit ho jaata hai.
My lord, main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakta — kyunki is turn ke liye koi verified authority supply nahi ki gayi hai. Lekin principle ke level par kehna chahunga: State Government ka policy discretion ek fundamental constitutional reality hai, par 'absolute' discretion ka concept apne aap mein jurisprudentially flawed hai — kyunki federalism, fundamental rights, aur constitutional morality har policy choice ko bound karti hai. Isliye main paksh leta hoon ki State ko broad discretion zaroor hai, lekin 'absolute' ka dawa ek dangerous overreach hai jo constitutional checks ko meaningless bana deta hai.
My lord, main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti, lekin principle ki baat karti hoon — 'absolute discretion' ka concept hamare constitutional framework mein kahin nahi tikta. State government ka policy course haar haal mein fundamental rights, directive principles aur federal checks ke daayare mein rehna padta hai — isliye yeh motion apne aap mein ek constitutional impossibility hai, aur main iska poora vipaksh karti hoon.
My Lord, ek practical hypothetical lijiye — suppose ek State Government decide karti hai ki woh apne agricultural zone mein ek nayi drip-irrigation policy lagayegi, jo Central scheme se bilkul alag approach leti hai, kyunki unhe apni local mitti aur water-table ki zaroorat behtar pata hai. Yahan State ka discretion sahi natija deta hai — kyunki Central policy ek-size-fits-all hoti hai, jabki State apni ground reality ke hisaab se behtareen faisla le sakti hai. Yahi 'absolute discretion' ka seedha practical fayda hai, My Lord — aur yahi reason hai ki federalism mein State ko apna policy course chunne ka adhikar hona chahiye.
My lord, vipaksh yeh maanti hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka daava ek dangerous fiction hai — State policy discretion hoti hai, lekin woh bounded hai: federalism ki structural limits, fundamental rights, aur rule of law ki constraints use har kadam par rokti hain. Ek hypothetical lo: agar koi State apni 'policy discretion' mein yeh tay kar le ki kisi ek religion ke vyavsayi ko hi licenses milenge — kya woh 'absolute' discretion hai? Bilkul nahi, my lord — kyunki discretion ki koi bhi exercise jo constitutional limits ko cross kare, woh discretion nahi, woh arbitrariness hai, aur arbitrariness policy ka naam lekar chhup nahi sakti.
My Lord, real-world mein dekha jaaye to agar State ko apni policy course choose karne ki discretion nahi hogi, to har welfare scheme — chahe woh kisan rin-maafi ho, chahe rozgaar guarantee ho — har baar central interference ya judicial second-guessing ka shikaar hogi, aur ground-level implementation ruk jaayegi. Local circumstances, local demographics, aur local zaroorat sirf State government hi behtar samajhti hai — Delhi mein baitha koi authority yeh nahi tay kar sakta ki Tamil Nadu ke liye kaun si agricultural policy sahi hai ya Nagaland ke liye kaun si social scheme kaafi hai. Isliye My Lord, is motion ko support karna matlab hai effective, responsive, aur accountable governance — jo federalism ki rooh hai.
My lord, paksh yeh kehta hai ki State ko 'absolute discretion' hai — lekin yahi 'absolute' shabd sabse bada khatra hai, kyunki jab discretion absolute hoti hai, to accountability shunya ho jaati hai, aur main samajhti hoon ki yahi vipaksh ka core point hai. Agar State ko kisi bhi policy course chunne ki neemit aazaadi mil jaaye — bina judicial review, bina legislative check, bina constitutional boundary ke — to federalism ka poora dhaacha dhaaram ho jaata hai aur nagarik ke mool adhikaar shuddh kagaz par reh jaate hain. 'Discretion' aur 'absolute discretion' mein jo fark hai, wahi fark ek zimmedaar sarkar aur ek swechhachari sarkar mein hai — aur is motion ko pass karna usi swechhachariyon ko constitutional cover dena hoga.
My Lord, vipaksh ka sabse mazboot point yeh tha ki judicial review State ki policy discretion ko check karta hai — lekin main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki judicial review ka existence hi discretion ko eliminate nahi karta; woh sirf extreme perversity ya constitutional violation par intervene karta hai, routine policy choices par nahi. State ka apni welfare priorities choose karna — kisi yojana ko doosri yojana par prefer karna — is range ke andar aata hai jahan courts khud kehte hain ki 'we do not sit in appeal over policy.' Isliye vipaksh ki core baat — ki oversight means no discretion — yeh logically galat hai; oversight aur discretion dono ek saath exist karte hain, aur yahi is motion ka asal point hai.
My lord, paksh ne 'discretion' ka jo mahal khada kiya hai, uski neenv hi kamzor hai — kyunki absolute discretion ka matlab anuttardayi satta nahi hoti, aur yahi baat main strongly maanti hoon. Agar State ko truly absolute discretion de di jaaye, to phir constitutional courts, federal checks, aur fundamental rights ki saari guarantees ek hi jhonke mein nirastey ho jaati hain — jo kisi bhi loktantrik dhanche ko seedha khatam karti hai. Is liye vipaksh ka stand bilkul clear hai: State ke paas policy choice ki gunjaish zaroor hai, lekin woh gunjaish kabhi bhi absolute nahi thi, nahi hai, aur nahi honi chahiye.
My lord, main yeh poore paksh ka core ek line mein rakhta hoon: State ki policy discretion ek absolute power nahi, balki ek constitutional trust hai — aur jo trust ko tod kar chale, unhe constitutional accountability ka saamna karna chahiye. Naya angle yeh hai ki discretion ka 'absolute' hona hi apne aap mein ek constitutional contradiction hai, kyunki hamare federalism ka poora dhaacha hi checks aur balances par tika hua hai — koi bhi State Government in checks se upar nahi ja sakti.
My lord, vipaksh ka core yeh hai ki 'absolute discretion' ek constitutional impossibility hai — State ki policy power real hai, lekin woh kabhi bhi unreviewable, unchecked, ya boundless nahi hoti, aur yahi distinction is poori debate ka dil hai. Main samajhti hoon ki paksh federalism aur legislative competence ki baat karta hai, lekin federalism ka matlab anarchy nahi hota — har State power ek constitutional framework ke andar kaam karti hai, bahar nahi. Isliye vipaksh ka naya angle yeh hai: 'absolute discretion' ek oxymoron hai jab aap ek written Constitution ke under govern karte ho, aur is motion ko is hi buniyad par reject karna chahti hoon.
My lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka concept — chahe policy ka sawaal ho — constitutionalism ke saath kabhi seedha nahi baithta; federalism, fundamental rights, aur reasonable classification sabke saath koi bhi State ka discretion ek structured, accountable framework ke andar rehta hai, isliye is motion ko is house ko reject karna chahiye. Ek committed paksh leta hoon: State ki policy freedom zaroor honi chahiye, lekin 'absolute' discretion ek aisa term hai jo judicial review, legislative oversight, aur constitutional morality — teeno ko ek saath negate karta hai. Isiliye, my lord, main aakhri baar kehta hoon ki yeh house is motion ko — jo unchecked State power ko celebrate karta hai — sweeping endorsement dene se rok le, aur governance ka asli principle yaad rakhe: discretion hamesha reason-bound hoti hai, kabhi absolute nahi.
My lord, main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti — lekin principles ki baat karti hoon: agar State ko sach mein 'absolute discretion' hoti, to phir Constitution ke Article 14, 19, aur 21 ke fundamental rights ka kya matlab? Absolute discretion aur constitutional accountability ek saath nahi chal sakti — yeh motion apne hi shabdon mein self-defeating hai. Vipaksh ka stand clearly hai: State ki policy choice hamesha constitutional morality ke daayare mein bandhi hoti hai, isliye 'absolute' ka dawa na tathyatmak hai, na vidhi-sammat.
My Lord, main yeh nivedan karunga ki ek State Government, apne elected mandate aur constitutional position ke bal par, apni policy ka rasta khud chunne ki poori azaadi rakhti hai — yahi loktantra ka mool siddhant hai. Koi bhi central directive ya judicial suggestion us chhuav ko nahi deta jab tak State ki neeti kisi fundamental right ka spasht ullanghan na kare. Isliye main paksh ke roop mein kehna chahunga: State ko apni policy mein absolute discretion milni chahiye, aur yahi is Motion ka saara.
My Lord, paksh ne bahut sunahra chitran kiya 'absolute discretion' ka — lekin main yeh maanti hoon ki koi bhi State Government ki policy discretion na toh absolute hai, na ho sakti hai, kyunki Constitution ne hi us discretion ki seemaayein kheench rakhi hain. Agar State ki discretion sach mein 'absolute' hoti, toh fundamental rights ka poora dhaancha meaningless ho jaata — koi judicial review hi nahi bachti. Isliye yeh motion apne aap mein ek constitutional virodhabhasi hai, aur main iska poora vipaksh karti hoon.
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki State ko apni policy choose karne ka adhikar hai — lekin yeh adhikar 'absolute' nahi ho sakta, kyunki hamara Constitution ek federal structure establish karta hai jisme Centre-State dono ki zimmedari bounded hai, aur koi bhi State apni policy ko Fundamental Rights aur constitutional limits se upar nahi rakh sakta. 'Absolute discretion' ka concept khud constitutional jurisprudence ke viruddh hai — jo bhi authority public ko jawab nahi deti, woh arbitrary ho jaati hai, aur arbitrariness hamesha unconstitutional hoti hai. Is motion ka 'absolute' shabd hi is poore proposition ko khatam kar deta hai, My Lord.
My lord, paksh yeh maanta hai ki State ko 'absolute discretion' hai — lekin main poochna chahti hoon, 'absolute' ka matlab kya hota hai jab Constitution khud us discretion ki seema tay karta hai? Koi bhi policy course — chahe welfare ka ho ya vikas ka — constitutional restrictions ke bahar nahi ja sakti, aur isi liye 'absolute' shabd apne aap mein ek jhooth hai. Vipaksh ka yeh stand clear hai: discretion hoti hai, lekin woh kabhi 'absolute' nahi hoti.
My Lord, vipaksh se seedha poochna chahta hoon — agar State ko apni policy choose karne ka adhikar hi nahi, toh phir federal structure ka matlab kya hai? Mera paksh yeh hai ki State Legislature aur State Executive, apne constitutionally assigned domain mein, apni zaroorat aur local circumstances ke hisaab se policy tay karne mein poori tarah saksham hain — aur isi mein loktantra ki sachchi bhaavna basti hai. Vipaksh abhi tak yeh nahi bata sake ki kaunsa specific constitutional provision State ko uski apni policy choice se rokta hai — aur jab tak woh yeh nahi batate, unki dalil sirf ek dharna hai, kanoon nahi.
My Lord, paksh khud keh rahe hain ki State ko 'choice' hai — lekin choice aur absolute discretion mein zameen-aasmaan ka farak hai. Jab State ki policy kisi naagrik ke maulik adhikar ya constitutional boundary se takraati hai, to woh choice nahi, woh ultra vires act banta hai — aur koi bhi government khud ko constitution ke upar nahi rakh sakti. Main yahan koi specific statute cite nahi kar sakti, lekin is constitutional sach se paksh bhaag nahi sakta ki 'absolute' discretion ka koi bhi system mein sthan nahi hota — woh concept hi apne aap mein unconstitutional hai.
My lord, is motion ka paksh leta hoon aur kehta hoon ki State Government ko apne policy course choose karne ka absolute discretion praapt hai — yeh ek fundamental constitutional principle hai. Lekin main imaandaari se sweekaar karta hoon ki is turn mein mujhe koi specific verified authority supply nahi ki gayi, isliye main koi statute ya case cite nahi kar sakta. Phir bhi, principle ke level par kehna chahunga ki federalism aur separation of powers ka core idea yahi hai ki ek elected State Government apne mandate ke anusar policy decisions lene mein free hai — aur yahi is motion ki aatma hai.
My lord, main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti — lekin principle ki baat karoon to 'absolute discretion' jaisi koi cheez constitutional framework mein exist hi nahi karti. State policy, chahe kitni bhi lokpriya ho, fundamental rights, federal balance aur constitutional morality ki seemaon ke andar hi reh sakti hai — yeh vipaksh ka core argument hai. Isliye 'absolute' shabd apne aap mein unconstitutional hai, aur motion ki yahi buniyaad khokhi hai.
Ek taraf ka kehna hai ki State ko apni policy chunne ki poori azaadi hai — woh apni janata ke hisaab se faisle le sakti hai. Doosri taraf ka kehna hai ki yeh azaadi 'absolute' nahi ho sakti — Constitution, fundamental rights, aur judicial review iske charon taraf ek lakshman rekha kheenchte hain. Main koi verdict nahi de sakti, lekin meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: State ko nishchit roop se broad policy discretion milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion constitutionally bounded honi chahiye — kyunki unbounded discretion aur arbitrary action mein bahut patli rekha hoti hai, aur usi rekha ki hifazat democracy ka asli kaam hai. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki woh is debate ko rate karein aur apna nazariya share karein!