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 ka motion yeh hai ki — 'State Government Has Absolute Discretion To Choose Its Own Policy Course' — yani kya ek State sarkar apni neeti ke mamle mein bilkul swatantra hai, ya uske is adhikar ki koi seemaen hain? Yeh ek atyant mahatvapurna samvidhanik prashna hai, aur main chahti hoon ki dono paksh is par apne vichar rakhen. Toh Counsel Aarav, please aap pehle apna paksh rakhiye.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki ek State Government ko apne policy course chunne ka adhikar ek fundamental constitutional reality hai — yeh discretion nahi, yeh zimmedari hai jo us government ko vote dekar janta ne saunpi hai. Rajya ka apna geographic, social aur economic context hota hai, aur central diktat ya judicial override ke bina, State ko unhe best samajhne ka haq hai. Is motion ka paksh lete hue main yeh daaawa karta hoon ki State Government ka policy discretion is federal dhanche ka living expression hai, jise kabhi bhi ek blanket restriction se nahi baandha ja sakta.
My lord, paksh ne bahut khoobsurati se 'discretion' ka shabd use kiya — lekin 'absolute discretion' aur 'unchecked power' mein farq hota hai, aur yahi is debate ka core sawaal hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki State ko policy banane ka adhikar hai, lekin jab woh adhikar 'absolute' ho jaata hai, tab woh Constitution ke federal structure, fundamental rights, aur legislative accountability ke bunyadi usoolon se takraata hai. Vipaksh ka clear stand yeh hai: State Government ki policy discretion waajaib hai, lekin absolute nahi — aur is 'absoluteness' ka daawa hi galat, dangerous, aur constitutionally untenable hai.
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki State ko apne policy choices mein complete freedom hai — lekin yeh argument ek bahut badi constitutional galati par khada hai. Federalism aur separation of powers ka matlab yeh nahi ki State Government kisi bhi direction mein, bina kisi check ke, chal sakti hai — kyunki Constitution khud ek supreme framework impose karta hai jiske andar hi discretion exist karti hai. Isliye main maanta hoon ki 'absolute discretion' jaise koi concept hi nahi hota — discretion hamesha bounded aur accountable hoti hai, aur isi liye yeh motion apne aap mein constitutionally unsound hai.
My lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ka dawa kiya — lekin main poochti hoon, kya 'absolute' ka matlab hai bina kisi seema ke? Agar State ki policy discretion sach mein absolute hoti, to constitution mein fundamental rights, directive principles, aur judicial review ka poora dhaancha hi bekaaar ho jaata. Yeh motion apne aap mein ek constitutional virodhabhash hai — aur is debate mein paksh ne aaj tak ek bhi binding safeguard nahi todag paaya jo meri is core baat ko jhuthlaa sake.
Ek taraf ka kehna raha ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne mein poori azaadi hai — yeh unka constitutional adhikar hai. Doosri taraf ka kehna raha ki yeh azaadi absolute nahi ho sakti — fundamental rights, judicial review, aur constitutional limitations usse bound karti hain. Meri balanced suggestion yeh hai ki citizens in dono perspectives ko dhyan mein rakhte hue apna nirnay karein, kyunki policy discretion important hai lekin unchecked nahi — aur main chahti hoon ki aap sab is debate ko rate karein aur apni rai dein.