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 legal awareness debate ka motion hai — 'State Government Has Absolute Discretion To Choose Its Own Policy Course.' Yeh ek bahut hi mahatvapoorna constitutional sawaal hai: kya ek State government apni policy mein bilkul swatantra hai, ya uski iss svechhata ki koi seema hai? Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki State Government ko apne policy matters mein absolute discretion prapt hai — kyunki federalism ka poora dhaancha is isi buniyad par khada hai ki har State apne logon ki zarooraton ko sabse behtar samajhta hai. Policy choices — chahe welfare schemes hon, taxation hon, ya development priorities — yeh purely executive domain mein aate hain, aur koi bhi central ya judicial intervention isme nahi honi chahiye jab tak koi fundamental rights ka sparsh na ho. Isliye main poore jazbe ke saath is motion ke paksh mein khada hoon.
My lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ka jo dawa kiya hai, woh ek dangerous aur constitutionally unfounded position hai — kyunki koi bhi state power absolute nahi hoti, yeh saarey constitutional jurisprudence ki bunyaad hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki state ko policy banane ka adhikaar zaroor hai, lekin 'absolute' shabd kisi bhi democratic framework mein kabhi fit nahi baithta — har discretion constitutional limitations, fundamental rights aur legislative supremacy ke daayare mein aati hai. Isliye vipaksh ka stand seedha aur clear hai: State Government ki policy discretion conditional hai, absolute nahi — aur is motion ko is House ko reject karna chahiye.
My lord, vipaksh yeh bhool raha hai ki 'discretion' ka matlab 'absolute discretion' nahi hota — yeh do alag cheezein hain. Federal structure mein State ko policy chunnay ki azaadi zaroor hai, lekin woh azaadi Constitution ke Article 14, Article 21, aur fundamental rights ke daayare ke andar bound hai — koi bhi sarkar, State ya Centre, un limitations se upar nahi ja sakti. Isliye 'absolute' shabd is motion ka sabse bada flaw hai, aur main yeh position firmly leta hoon ki yeh motion apni hi buniyad par kamzor hai.
My Lord, paksh ne 'discretion' ka jo argument diya, woh sunta toh achha hai — lekin 'absolute' shabd constitutional jurisprudence mein kabhi bhi survive nahi karta, kyunki federalism, fundamental rights, aur legislative competence sab milkar uss 'absolute' ko kaat dete hain. Main yahan koi specific statute cite nahi kar sakti, lekin yeh ek settled constitutional principle hai jise koi bhi standard textbook confirm karti hai — State ki policy freedom ek bounded freedom hai, unbounded nahi. Isliye 'absolute discretion' ka claim apne aap mein ek constitutional fallacy hai, aur vipaksh is fallacy ko reject karta hai — motion approved nahi hona chahiye.
Is debate mein ek taraf ne kaha ki State ko apni policy choose karne ki poori azadi hai, jabki doosri taraf ne kaha ki yeh azadi constitutional limits, fundamental rights, aur judicial review ke daayare mein bandhi hai. Meri suggestion yeh hai ki State ko policy mein discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion absolute nahi ho sakti — usse constitutional morality aur citizens ke basic rights ka dhyan rakhna hoga. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karen aur apna nazariya saajha karen.