Politico-legal conflicts remain amidst the new and old Amaravati

Does the recently passed Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Act, 2026, legally strengthen Amaravati as the capital city? The answer entirely depends on how the law is implemented against federal dynamics and the ongoing political conflicts between the ruling and opposition parties in Andhra Pradesh.

The parliament amended the 2014 Act to declare Amaravati as the sole and permanent capital of Andhra Pradesh. This move is expected to give the city statutory backing under a central law, applying retrospectively from June 2, 2024 (the end of Hyderabad’s tenure as the common capital). By amending Section 5 of the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, the law explicitly names Amaravati.

Amaravati shall be the capital!

Earlier, the law simply stated that “AP shall have a new capital” without defining it. Now, it mandates that “AP shall have a capital at Amaravati.” This shift is expected to end the ambiguity created after the 2014 bifurcation and, more importantly, clear the confusion caused by the 2020 three-capital proposal. It aims to prevent future state governments from easily shifting the capital based on political whims and fancies. The capital’s status now rests upon a parliamentary statute rather than a state-level political choice, which is claimed to bring Amaravati the much-needed legal stability.

This amendment overrides the “three capitals” concept, regardless of who supported or opposed it. It effectively nullifies the earlier model of Visakhapatnam (Executive), Amaravati (Legislative), and Kurnool (Judicial), a model that unfortunately failed to materialize over the last 12 years. Despite seeing a shift from the TDP-Janasena-BJP coalition to YSRCP rule and back to the same NDA coalition over the past five years, the state is still searching for true administrative stability. The pressing question remains: Does this Central law, by recognizing only one capital, finally settle a long-standing constitutional controversy? A parliamentary law regarding a capital city is still an ordinary Act, which can be altered or reverted depending on regime changes. Andhra Pradesh needs a strong, stable, and continuous capital city, regardless of its name.

Parliament vs State power:

Does this legislation fully guarantee Amaravati’s success? Not entirely. One must examine the critical constitutional reality, as it raises a significant federal question regarding Parliament versus State power. The location of a state capital is not explicitly listed in the Union List; it is generally treated as a State subject falling under the executive domain. Can Parliament permanently bind a state’s capital choice? Is this legislative overreach? This could spark future constitutional challenges. The capital of Andhra Pradesh has been tossed around as if cursed by a rishi with its fate entirely dependent on the prevailing political dispensation.

Furthermore, the Parliamentary Amaravati Act was introduced suddenly and kept a secret, bypassing comprehensive discussion in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly or Council. This lack of transparency may open another litigation.

Official reports claim that the legal backing will secure a ₹50,000+ crore development pipeline and boost private investment confidence. However, media reports noted that the bill was passed by voice vote with all political parties present except the YSR Congress members, who staged a walkout, an indicator of lingering instability and future doubts.

Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu remarked, “This is a historic and defining moment for Andhra Pradesh. With the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, being passed unanimously in both Houses of Parliament, the collective will and aspirations of our people have found a resounding voice at the national level.” Nara Lokesh added in a post, “The eclipse that had befallen Amaravati has passed… Legitimacy has come to the people’s capital.”

Inaction and poor governance:

But who is truly responsible for this inaction, poor governance, and waste of time? Lokesh recently noted that development works worth close to ₹50,000 crore had been tendered, and the Central Government has released nearly ₹18,000 crore to the state since 2024. He expressed hope that the Secretariat, Assembly, High Court, and major roads would be completed in two years. Yet, the people of Andhra Pradesh are left counting the days: “We hoped work would start by 2024 and finish in two years. Now, a quarter of 2026 is already gone.”

Sacrifices of farmers:

Recognizing the sacrifices of farmers, who pooled over 33,000 acres of land is a moral imperative, but it currently lacks a guarantee of timely project completion. The political validation is notable, but is it enough to restore confidence among stakeholders? At this stage, it feels largely symbolic.

Amaravati requires massive capital investment and long-term urban planning. Boasting that legal status alone is a great achievement is premature.

What is the ‘status’ of AP?

What good is an amendment that offers the people of Andhra Pradesh nothing but a “status” that could theoretically be amended again if the government changes? This intervention by the Parliament is highly unusual and raises serious questions regarding legislative competence (Article 246) and the Basic Structure doctrine of federalism. Pushed through without adequate public debate or Assembly discussion, it serves as a massive test case for Indian Constitutional Law. Ultimately, while the 2026 amendment legally secures Amaravati, its real success depends on political will, financial capacity, and constitutional sustainability.

One must remember that Special Category Status (SCS) was a verbal promise to Andhra Pradesh that was never included in the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014. Because it lacked legal enforceability, it was left entirely to the political will of the ruling Central Government.

SCS & SAM and ‘dharma porata deeksha’:

Instead of fighting to the end, Chandrababu Naidu’s government initially agreed to a “Special Assistance Measure” (Special Package) in 2016, which promised the monetary equivalent of SCS. When public anger erupted over this compromise, the TDP made a U-turn and exited the NDA in 2018. From 2018 to 2019, Naidu launched the “Dharma Porata Deeksha” and clashed heavily with Delhi. However, because the BJP held an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, they did not need the TDP’s support, rendering the protests ineffective.

Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy then won the 2019 election after campaigning heavily on achieving SCS. Yet, once in power, he admitted that because the BJP won 303 seats, AP could only “request and pray” for SCS, not “demand” it.

If both parties were genuinely interested in the development of Andhra Pradesh, why did Naidu and Reddy fight together to secure SCS or an equivalent financial package? History has proven that a mere promise, an election campaign, or even a statutory provision passed by Parliament is not enough to build Amaravati without sufficient, guaranteed funds for the Secretariat, High Court, and broader infrastructure. Legal status is a start, but it is not a city.

(The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)