N KAMARAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Lawyer of thirty years practice is aggrieved by the State's inaction in reconstituting Telangana Regional Committee till a consensus is reached between the representatives of Andhra region and Telangana region. The petitioner is represented by a young Lawyer, Sri Ram, reminding us about undoubtful philosophy of constitution of a nation and right of the people to a peaceful governance. The young Counsel of course forgetting the limitations in exercise of judicial review passionately pleads for a direction to the State to reconstitute Telangana Regional Committee.

(2.) We have heard the Counsel. The issue raised is an issue which lacks adjudicative disposition. It is axiomatic that all decisions and actions (indecisions and inactions) are not justiciable in a Court of law. Political questions or political issues occupy the highest position in the prohibited list. The Counsel in spite of our repeated query has not placed before this Court any law which obliges the State of Andhra Pradesh to reconstitute Regional Committees. The Counsel relies on the observation made by one of us (VVSRJ) in a Full Bench decision in P.V.S.V. Prasada Rao v. Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 2006 2 ALD 1 (FB) presumably to remind us of our duty. Though we are not ignorant of the obiter in the Full Bench decision we are convinced that the observations made therein are with reference to an issue which is justiciable in a Court of law and not relevant to an issue which is not at all amenable to review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel also relies on the Constituent Assembly Debates dated 25.11.1949, especially, the speech of a Hon'ble Member, Sri Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. After perusing the observations we are not convinced that they support the petitioner's contention. The petitioner's grievance can be redressed only by the State because it is not competent for the Court to resolve all political issues. In a democratic nation the people's verdict is supreme and the Court, be they statutory Courts or Constitutional Courts, must respect decision of the people arrived at after a peaceful political process. Before we part with this brief order, we may observe that judicial restraint is called for in areas where decision has to be taken by people. Political change should come not from Judges, but from Parliament and State Legislatures, and the people who send their representatives to these august bodies. There is no inherent jurisdiction or incidental power vested in the High Court to suggest method, manner and mode of resolving the internecine squabbles of Telugu speaking people. It is only those people who have to solve their problems by democratic political process. All the constitutional authorities at best may discharge their role as consultants and regulators under the law and the Constitution.

(3.) The writ petition is outside the purview of pro bono categories and is accordingly dismissed in limine.