Amaravati Not Viable as Capital, Warned Sivaramakrishnan Committee

The Sivaramakrishnan Committee, headed by a retired IAS officer, had cautioned that concentrating the state capital in a single location would hamper the development prospects of other regions in Andhra Pradesh. Formed by the Central government after the state’s bifurcation, the committee made it clear that establishing one large capital city for Andhra Pradesh was neither practical nor necessary.

It also opposed the idea of searching for a “super city” as the sole capital and strongly objected to building a greenfield capital on fertile agricultural lands under the name of Amaravati. The committee stressed that governance and development must be decentralised, and placing all administrative institutions in one location was not advisable.

Hasty Setup Leads to Waste

The committee noted that under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, Hyderabad was designated as the joint capital for ten years. Therefore, there was no need to hurriedly relocate government offices. It warned that setting up administrative infrastructure in haste or on a temporary basis could lead to inefficiency and wastage of resources.

Financial Constraints and Cost Concerns

Given that the residuary Andhra Pradesh was facing severe financial stress and a revenue deficit post-bifurcation, the committee advised the state government to undertake capital development at minimal cost, keeping available financial resources in mind.

Questions Over Parallel Committee

Notably, even before the Sivaramakrishnan Committee submitted its report, the then Chandrababu Naidu-led government had appointed another committee under the Urban Development Minister to identify the capital location. The Sivaramakrishnan report itself mentioned this development, stating that its scope was limited to the inputs provided by the government.

Key Recommendations of the Sivaramakrishnan Committee

Concentrating the capital in one location would adversely affect balanced regional development. Administrative institutions should be decentralised across regions such as Vijayawada–Guntur, Visakhapatnam (North Andhra), Srikalahasti, Nadikudi, and Rayalaseema.

There is no need for all government offices to be located in one place, nor is there any special advantage in doing so.

A single large capital city is not feasible for Andhra Pradesh, especially given the limited availability of large tracts of government land.

Instead of building a Hyderabad-like super capital, the state should avoid repeating the same centralisation that became a major issue during the bifurcation.

Existing and proposed rail and road connectivity between cities can be strengthened, reducing the need for a single mega capital.

Government offices can be distributed across regions, including Amaravati, Nuzvid, Musunuru, and Gannavaram.

Visakhapatnam can host key government directorates, while a High Court could be established there with a bench in Rayalaseema.

The committee also suggested identifying Visakhapatnam and Srikakulam as special development corridors, promoting industry in Visakhapatnam and education in Anantapur.

It recommended setting up government offices across all 13 districts and prioritising locations with available government land instead of acquiring fertile agricultural land.

Land and Infrastructure Guidelines

The committee outlined approximate land requirements:

15–20 acres for the Chief Minister’s Office and Secretariat

80–100 acres for the Assembly

100–140 acres for the High Court

15 acres for Raj Bhavan

It reiterated that acquiring fertile agricultural land for capital construction was not advisable.

Push for Decentralised Governance

The committee emphasised that decentralisation was essential for equitable development and efficient governance. It stated that distances between administrative centres would not be a constraint due to advancements in electronic communication systems, which enable seamless coordination.

It also clarified that the High Court need not be located in the same place as the Chief Minister’s Office or Secretariat, suggesting flexibility in institutional placement.

Opposition to Greenfield Capital

The committee firmly opposed the idea of a greenfield capital city in the reorganised Andhra Pradesh. However, if the state still chose to pursue such a model, it advised identifying locations with sufficient government land and carefully assessing infrastructure needs and environmental impact.

It further warned that rushed, temporary arrangements for government offices could prove wasteful. Instead, it suggested that a limited number of administrative offices, including those of the Chief Minister, ministers, and Secretariat, could be set up in suitable locations on the outskirts of existing urban regions.