Common High Court for AP and Telangana States

HYDERABAD: The Central Government submitted before the High Court that the existing common High Court in Hyderabad, which came into existence on June 2 this year, has absolute jurisdiction over Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh until a separate High Court for AP is constituted.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a contempt case in which a single judge earlier sought clarification from the Centre on the jurisdiction of the common High Court.

P Vishnuvardhan Reddy, assistant solicitor general, placed a communication between the Union Home Secretary and the then Chief Secretary of United AP, dated May 8, 2014, with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Citing the letter, the ASG said as per the communication, initially the existing High Court would be converted to a common High Court as per Section 30 of the AP Reorganisation Act and then a separate High Court would be created under Section 30 (1) of the Act, and till then the existing High Court is the court for the successor states of AP and Telangana.

Reacting to the submission, L Ravichander, the amicus curiae in the case, pointed out that the communication could only be considered as an opinion and not a clarificatory order of the President in exercise of powers under the AP Reorganisation Act. The Reorganisation Act must be so read as to mean that the present High Court in Hyderabad has the jurisdiction over the territories of Andhra Pradesh also.

He said it was the duty of the court to interpret a statute in such a manner as to 'avoid hardship, inconvenience, injustice, absurdity and anomaly'. The amicus curiae pointed out to the apparent conflict between Section 40 and Section 30 of the Act.

He opined that though Section 40 referred to the appointed date as the crucial date, canons of interpretation would require the court to bend in favour of an interpretation which represents the true intent of the legislature.

P Venugopal, Advocate General of AP, said the referral point itself was academic and not warranted in view of the clear position. Reacting to the arguments, the bench clarified that the issue was one of basic jurisdiction and that the single judge only wanted the path cleared.

The bench reserved its orders on the plea of contempt as well as the jurisdiction of the common High Court.