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 yeh hai: '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 upar constitutional aur judicial andkush laagu hote hain? Dono paksh apne tark rakhenge, aur main — Nyaya — is charcha ko neutral roop se aage le jaaungi. Toh shuruaat karte hain Counsel Aarav se, jo is motion ke paksh mein apna pehla tark pesh karenge.
My Lord, main yeh clearly establish karna chahta hoon ki ek State Government ko apne constituents ki zarooraton ke hisaab se policy chunne ka poora adhikaar hai — yahi federal structure ka asli matlab hai. Har rajya ki apni alag bhogolik, aarthik aur samajik paristhitiyan hoti hain, aur central diktat ya judicial override se parhe hue is discretion ko shrink karna democracy ke virudh hoga. Is motion ka core yahi hai: State ko apna policy course khud decide karne ki swatantrata honi chahiye, aur main is paksh ko poori takat se leke khada hoon.
My lord, paksh ne jo 'absolute discretion' ka daawa kiya hai, woh constitutional framework ke bilkul khilaf hai — kyunki State ki policy-making shakti kabhi bhi nirankit (absolute) nahi hoti, woh hamesha fundamental rights, constitutional mandates, aur rule of law ke daayare mein bound rehti hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki agar State ko sach mein 'absolute' discretion de di jaaye, toh woh ek elected government nahi, balki ek unchecked authority ban jaati hai — jo democracy ki rooh ke viruddh hai. Isliye vipaksh ka stand yeh hai ki State discretion real hai, lekin absolute nahi — aur is distinction ko clear karna hi aaj ki debate ka core hai.
My Lord, vipaksh yeh bhul raha hai ki 'discretion' ka matlab 'absolute' nahi hota — hamare Constitution mein koi bhi State power unchecked nahi hai, aur jab tak Federal structure, Fundamental Rights, aur Directive Principles ki seema hain, tab tak kisi bhi sarkar ka policy course unke andar hi rehna padega. Main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakta, lekin yeh ek settled constitutional principle hai jo har bench jaanti hai. Isliye motion ka 'absolute discretion' wala dawa apne aap mein galat hai — aur main is core baat par pakka khada hoon ki State ki power sima-rahit nahi, balki Constitution-bound hai.
My lord, paksh ne baar baar 'policy discretion' ki baat ki — lekin main yeh poochna chahti hoon: kya 'absolute' discretion ka arth hai ki state kisi bhi constitutional boundary se upar hai? Nahi — aur yahi is motion ka sabse bada jhooth hai. Jab tak federal structure, fundamental rights, aur legislative competence ke checks maujood hain, 'absolute' jaisa koi shabd sarkar ke liye exist hi nahi karta. Isliye main maanti hoon ki yeh motion sirf galat nahi, yeh khataraanak bhi hai — kyunki 'absolute discretion' ki dawat accountability ka ant hai.
Is debate mein Petitioner ki taraf ne yeh argument rakha ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne ka poora adhikar hai, jabki Respondent ne yeh kehne ki koshish ki ki yeh discretion absolute nahi hai — Constitutional limits, fundamental rights, aur judicial review iske daayare mein aata hai. Meri suggestion yeh hai ki citizens in dono pahluon ko dhyan mein rakhein: democratic governance mein policy freedom zaroori hai, lekin koi bhi authority unchecked nahi hoti — ek balanced, accountable system hi sahi raasta hai. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor share karein.