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' — yani kya ek State Government apni niti ke mamle mein poori tarah swatantra hai, ya uske is adhikar ki koi constitutional seema hoti hai? Main chahti hoon ki dono paksh is sawaal ko constitutional aur niti ke nazariye se aage leke chalen. Counsel Aarav, aap pehle apna paksh rakhiye.
My lord, main yeh paksh leta hoon ki State Government ko apna policy course chunne ka poora adhikar hai — yeh koi imposition nahi, balki hamare federal constitutional structure ka ek mool sthambh hai. Har State ki apni geography, apni aabaadi, apni zarooraten hain — ek hi size ki policy poore desh par nahi thopi ja sakti. Isliye main kahunga ki State ka yeh discretion na sirf valid hai, balki lazar-i hai.
My lord, paksh ne jo 'absolute discretion' ka daawa kiya hai, woh ek khayali duniya ki baat hai — kyunki State ki policy-making shakti kabhi bhi nirankush nahi hoti, balki Constitution, fundamental rights, aur legislative framework ke andar bound hoti hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki State ko apna niti-nirdhaaran karne ka adhikar hai, lekin 'absolute' ka matlab yeh nahi ki woh bina kisi judicial ya constitutional janch ke kaam kar sake. Vipaksh ka kehna yeh hai ki is 'absolute discretion' ke siddhant ko maan liya gaya, to accountability, good governance, aur citizens ke enforceable rights — sab meaningless ho jaate hain.
My lord, vipaksh ka yeh kehna ki State ko 'absolute discretion' hai — yeh ek dangerous half-truth hai. Hamara samvidhan ek structured federalism deta hai jisme State ki policy-making shakti zaroor hai, lekin woh Article 14, Article 21, aur directive principles ke constitutional framework ke andar bound hai — 'absolute' kabhi nahi. Main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakta kyunki is turn mein koi verified authority supply nahi ki gayi, lekin principle crystal clear hai: koi bhi state power — chahe legislative ho ya executive — unchecked aur absolute nahi ho sakti, aur vipaksh ka yeh stand khud samvidhan ki basic structure ke khilaf jaata hai.
My lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ka jo daawa kiya hai, woh samvidhan ke basic structure ke seedha khilaf jaati hoon — kyunki koi bhi State authority 'absolute' nahi hoti, woh fundamental rights aur constitutional limits ke andar bandhi hoti hai. Aur main clearly kehna chahti hoon: jab State ki policy nagrik ke adhikaron ko kuchhalti ho, to Court ka judicial review usi waqt zaruri ho jaata hai — 'absolute discretion' ka shield usse rok nahi sakta. Is liye yeh motion apne aap mein asavidhaanik hai, aur main iska poora vipaksh karti hoon.
Is debate mein Petitioner Counsel ne yeh daliil di ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne ki poori azaadi honi chahiye, jabki Respondent Counsel ne kehna chahiye tha ki yeh discretion constitutional limitations aur fundamental rights ke daayare mein bandhi hai — dono pakshon ne apne-apne strong points rakhe. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki State ko policy mein discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion unconstitutional, arbitrary ya maulik adhikaron ke viruddh nahi ho sakti — is baare mein public awareness aur judicial review ki samajh zaroori hai. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki woh is motion ko apni samajh ke hisaab se rate karen aur apna nazar-iya saanjha karen.