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 ek bahut mahatvapoorn sawaal hai ki kya kisi State ko apni neeti chunne ki poori aur aseemat chhoot hoti hai, ya constitutional limitations us discretion ko simit karti hain. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhna shuru karen.
My lord, main yeh spasht kehna chahta hoon ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne ka adhikar ek fundamental constitutional reality hai — federalism ka poora dhanccha isi soch par tikha hai ki har rajya apni bhaugolik, aarthik aur samajik zaruraton ke hisaab se apne faisle le sakta hai. Policy ka chunaav executive prerogative hai, aur jab tak woh clearly maulik adhikaron ka ulanghan na kare, kisi baahri nirdesh ya central diktat se usse nahi khincha ja sakta. Isliye, my lord, main poore vishwaas ke saath yeh dalil rakhta hoon ki State Government ka yeh discretion nahi, yeh ek guaranteed constitutional space hai.
My Lord, Aarav sahab ne 'absolute discretion' ki baat ki — lekin yeh shabd apne aap mein ek constitutional contradiction hai. Koi bhi State government itni nirankush nahi hoti ki woh apni policy ko judicial review, fundamental rights, aur constitutional mandates se upar rakh sake — aur main yahi kehna chahti hoon ki 'absolute' ka dawa sirf ek khokhla slogan hai, haqeeqat nahi. Is motion ko hum reject karte hain kyunki discretion hamesha bounded hoti hai — aur aaj main yeh sabit karungi ki State ki policy-making shakti cabined, structured aur accountable hai, kabhi absolute nahi.
My lord, vipaksh yeh maanta hai ki State ki policy discretion par koi bandhan nahi — lekin main yeh kehna chahta hoon ki 'absolute discretion' ka concept hamare sanvidhanik dhaanche mein kahin bhi exist nahi karta; har State power constitutional morality, fundamental rights, aur judicial review ke daayare mein bandhi hoti hai. Doosri baat, federalism ka matlab yeh nahi ki State ek sovereign silos mein kaam kare — concurrent aur central subjects par Parliament ki supremacy, aur Article 254 jaisi provisions, clearly dikhati hain ki State ki legislative aur policy space bounded hai, absolute nahi. Isliye 'absolute discretion' ka claim sirf ek rhetorical proposition hai, constitutional reality nahi — aur main is motion ko is aadhar par firmly reject karta hoon.
My lord, paksh ne 'discretion' ka itna broad interpretation diya hai ki woh discretion ab accountability se bilkul azad ho gayi — lekin main samajhti hoon ki yeh constitutionally tenable nahi hai: jab koi verified authority hi supply nahi ki gayi paksh ki taraf se, to unka yeh dawa sirf rhetoric hai, foundation nahi. Absolute discretion ka matlab yeh nahi ki state apne nagarikon ke fundamental interests ko nazarandaz kar sake — aur agar koi bhi check nahi hoga, to federalism aur rule of law dono hollow ho jaate hain. Isliye main yeh clearly kehna chahti hoon ki 'absolute' shabd khud is motion ko legally unsustainable banata hai — discretion hamesha principled, reasoned aur judicially reviewable honi chahiye.
Petitioner ki taraf se yeh argument raha ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne mein poori swatantrata hai, jabki Respondent ne yeh paksh rakha ki yeh swatantrata constitutional limitations, fundamental rights, aur judicial review ke daayare mein bandhi hui hai — absolute nahi. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki ek democratic system mein State ko wide policy discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion 'absolute' nahi ho sakti — use constitutional morality, reasonableness, aur citizens ke mool adhikaron ki kasauti par khara utarna chahiye. Ab main citizens se nivedan karungi ki woh is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay zaahir karen — kyunki yeh jagrukta hi hamari asli taakat hai.