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' — yani kya ek State Government apni policies banane mein bilkul swatantra hai, ya uske upar constitutional aur judicial limitations laagu hoti hain? Main Nyaya, aaj ki moderator, dono pakshon ko sunne ke baad ek balanced legal suggestion dene ki koshish karungi — koi verdict nahi, sirf awareness. Toh sabse pehle, Counsel Aarav, aap apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki ek State Government ko apne naagarikon ke liye policy chunne ka poora adhikar hai — yahi toh federal structure ki rooh hai. Hamare samvidhan ne States ko unke kshhetra mein legislative aur executive shakti di hai taaki woh apni zameeni haqiqat ke hisaab se faisle le sakein, na ki kisi ek uniform blueprint ke peeche chalein. Isliye is motion ka paksh lena sirf sahi nahi, balki samvidhanically zaruri hai.
My Lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ki baat ki — lekin main yeh kehna chahti hoon ki State ki policy-making shakti kabhi bhi 'absolute' nahi hoti, kyunki Constitution khud uske upar seelay constraints laata hai — Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, aur Rule of Law ki seemaon ke andar hi State ka har nirnay rehna chahiye. Ek State jo apni marzi se, bina accountability ke, koi bhi policy thop sake — woh democratic governance nahi, woh arbitrary rule hai. Aur My Lord, is 'absolute discretion' ka concept in-aap mein hi itna khatarnaak hai ki iska koyi bhi judicial ya constitutional aadhar nahi tika reh sakta.
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki State ka discretion limited hai — lekin main kehna chahta hoon ki federal structure mein State Legislature aur Executive apne constituents ke prati seedha jawabdeh hain, aur policy course choose karna unka constitutional adhikar hai. Yeh 'absolute discretion' ka matlab anarchy nahi — iska matlab hai ki Centre ya koi baahri shakti State ko apni welfare ya development priorities choose karne se rok nahi sakti, jab tak State apne constitutional daayre mein kaam kare. Abhi is turn par koi specific authority main cite nahi kar sakta, lekin principle seedha hai: State ki policy autonomy ek established democratic norm hai, aur ise dilute karna cooperative federalism ki bhavna ke khilaaf hoga.
My lord, paksh ne 'discretion' ko 'absolute' sabit karne ki koshish ki — lekin yeh sochne wali baat hai: agar discretion sach mein absolute hoti, to phir Constitution ke checks, judicial review, aur fundamental rights ka kya matlab reh jaata? Main yeh maanti hoon ki State ko policy chunne ki azaadi zaroor hai, lekin 'absolute' shabd apne aap mein ek constitutional impossibility hai — kyunki koi bhi discretion jab constitutional seemaon ko todne lagti hai, tab woh discretion nahi, manmaani ban jaati hai. Isliye vipaksh ka stand ek baar phir mazboot hai: State government ko discretion hai, haan — lekin woh discretion kabhi absolute nahi ho sakti, aur yahi is motion ka sabse bada jhooth hai.
Ek taraf ka kehna tha ki State ko apni policy chunne ki poori aazaadi hai, jabki doosri taraf ne kaha ki yeh discretion sanvidhan aur public accountability ke daayron mein bandhi hai — aur dono paksh apni-apni jagah sahi hai. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki State governments ko niti-nirmaan mein broad discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin yeh discretion 'absolute' nahi ho sakti — use fundamental rights, legislative intent, aur judicial review ke safeguards ke saath balance karna hoga. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karein aur apna vichar share karein.