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 hai: 'State Government Has Absolute Discretion To Choose Its Own Policy Course' — yeh sawaal seedha State ki niti-nirdharan shakti aur uske constitutional limits ke baare mein hai. Main, Nyaya, aaj ki is legal awareness debate ki sanchalika hoon, aur dono pakshon se anurodh karungi ki woh apne tark saaf aur sashakt rakhein. Pehle Counsel Aarav se prarthna karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki ek State Government — jo apne voters ke samne directly jawabdeh hai — apni policy course chunne mein poori tarah swatantra hai; yeh discretion uski constitutional aur loktantrik pehchaan ka hissa hai. Federalism ka mool tatva yahi hai ki har State apni local zarooraton, apni janta ki praathmikataon, aur apne sansadhano ke hisaab se behtar faisla le sakta hai — koi central diktat ya judicial override us wisdom ko replace nahi kar sakti jab tak koi fundamental violation na ho. Isliye, main maanta hoon ki yeh motion bilkul sahi hai aur State Government ki is policy autonomy ko poori taakat se defend karunga.
My lord, paksh ne 'absolute discretion' ka jo daawa kiya hai, woh ek dangerous half-truth hai — State ki policy freedom real hai, lekin woh kabhi bhi 'absolute' nahi hoti, kyunki Constitution, fundamental rights, aur judicial review ki boundaries us discretion ko har mod par gherti hain. Main yeh maanti hoon ki ek elected government ko apni neeti chunne ka adhikar hai, lekin jab woh neeti nagrik ke adhikaron ko kuchalti ho ya constitutional mandates se takraati ho, toh woh discretion nahi — woh anarchy hai. Isliye is motion ka poora premise hi galat hai, aur main iska poora virodh karti hoon.
My lord, vipaksh yeh maanta hai ki State ke paas koi absolute discretion hai — lekin main poori tarah se iska khandna karta hoon. Federalism ka asli arth yeh hai ki State apne domain mein policy chune, lekin 'absolute discretion' ka dawa to khud Constitution ke basic structure ke viruddh jaata hai, kyunki koi bhi sarkar — State ya Centre — bina accountability ke operate nahi kar sakti. Aur is lack of accountability ka seedha asar un naagirkon par padta hai jo us policy ka bojh uthate hain — isliye 'absolute' shabd kabool karna to naitik aur samvaidhanik dono hi nazar se galat hoga.
My Lord, Aarav ne jo argument diya — ki State ko apna policy course chunne ka adhikar hai — uss baat se main bilkul inakar karti hoon, kyunki 'discretion' ka matlab 'absolute' discretion kabhi nahi hota; har sarkar constitutional morality aur federal structure ke andhar kaam karti hai, jo uss discretion ko bound karti hai. Agar State genuinely absolute hoti, toh Constitutional provisions aur legislative competence ki saari framework meaningless ho jaati — jo clearly possible nahi hai. Isliye vipaksh ka stand yahi hai: State ka policy discretion real hai, lekin woh bounded hai — 'absolute' shabd khud Constitution ke saath conflict mein hai, aur yeh motion uss seema mein hi fail karti hai.
Ek taraf ka kehna tha ki State Government ko apni policy choose karne mein poori azaadi honi chahiye — lekin doosri taraf ne yeh sthapit kiya ki yeh discretion constitutional limits, fundamental rights, aur judicial review ke daayare se bahar nahi ja sakti. Main yahan koi specific authority cite nahi kar sakti kyunki is debate mein koi verified statute supply nahi ki gayi, isliye main sirf principle ki baat karti hoon. Dono pakshon ki baat sunne ke baad meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: State ko policy mein discretion zaroor milni chahiye, lekin woh discretion arbitrary nahi ho sakti — use reasonableness, public interest, aur constitutional safeguards ki kasauti par khara utarna chahiye. Ab aap — humare nagrik — is debate ko rate karein aur apna mat dein!