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 is debate mein hum ek bahut mahatvapurna constitutional sawaal par vichar karenge — kya State Government ko apni policy chunne ka 'absolute discretion' prapt hai, ya phir yeh discretion samvidhan aur nagrik adhikaron ki seemaon se bandhi hui hai? Dono taraf ke arguments sunne ke baad main ek balanced legal suggestion dene ki koshish karungi. To ab main Counsel Aarav se anurodh karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhna shuru karen.
My Lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki State Government ko apne policy course chunne ka poora adhikar hai — yeh koi special favour nahi, balki hamari federal structure ka ek buniyaadi sach hai. Har State apni janta ki zaroorat, apni geography, apni economy ke hisaab se apna raasta khud chunta hai — aur isi mein democracy ki asli taakat hai. Isiliye main maanta hoon ki State Government ka yeh discretion absolute hai, aur ise chhina nahi ja sakta.
My Lord, main Bina, vipaksh ki taraf se hoon — aur main seedha kehna chahti hoon ki 'absolute discretion' jaisi koi cheez kisi bhi democratic, constitutional framework mein exist nahi karti, aur State Government bhi iska apavaad nahi hai. Paksh ka yeh kehna ki State apni policy mein poori tarah swatantra hai — yeh Constitution ke basic structure ko nazar-andaaz karna hai, jisme judicial review, fundamental rights, aur federalism ke checks shaamil hain. Ek aisi soch jo accountability ko sideline kare, woh democracy nahi — woh arbitrariness hai, aur arbitrariness ko kabhi bhi 'discretion' ka naam dekar valid nahi banaya ja sakta.
My lord, vipaksh ka yeh kehna ki State government ko seedha central direction ya judicial oversight ke bina absolute discretion milti hai — yeh fundamentally galat hai. Hamara Constitution ek federal structure mein kaam karta hai jahan State ki policy discretion zaroor hai, lekin woh Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, aur constitutional limits ke andar bound hai — 'absolute' shabd ka koi gunjaaish hi nahi. Main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakta, lekin yeh constitutional principle itna settled hai ki 'absolute discretion' ki baat karna hi apne aap mein ek fallacy hai — discretion hamesha structured, channelled, aur reviewable hoti hai, aur main is paksh par committed rehta hoon.
My Lord, Paksh ne 'discretion' ko 'absolute' bana diya — lekin yeh conceptually hi galat hai. Jab koi bhi discretion judicial review, constitutional morality, aur federal balance ke bahar nahi ja sakti, to usse 'absolute' kehna ek contradiction hai — aur main yeh maanti hoon ki State ki policy freedom ek seeamit, accountable freedom hai, na ki nirankit adhikar. Bina kisi authority ke bhi, basic constitutional logic yahi kehti hai ki 'absolute' discretion ek aisa concept hai jo hamare sangvidhan ki poori structure se hi badhir hai — aur isliye yeh motion apne hi shabdon mein jhooth hai.
Is debate mein ek taraf ne kaha ki State Government ko apni policy chunne ki poori aazadi hai, jabki doosri taraf ne kaha ki yeh discretion sanvidhanik seemaon aur fundamental rights ke daayare mein honi chahiye. Main koi faisla nahi sunaungi, lekin ek balanced legal suggestion deti hoon: State ko policy mein swatantrata zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh swatantrata sanvidhanik zimmedari, judicial review, aur nagrik hit ke saath balanced honi chahiye — kyunki nirankush vivek loktantra mein kabhi bhi mutlaq nahi hota. Aap sabse — humare nagarikon se — gujarish karungi ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaahir karein.