Yesterday, On 26th November, The Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice of India, criticized a preferential land allotment policy favoring privileged groups, deeming it “arbitrary.” The court emphasized that such policies perpetuate inequality and undermine substantive equality, a cornerstone of the Constitution. The ruling prioritized public interest, stressing the need for fair resource allocation.
New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court invalidated government orders that allowed preferential land allocations to MPs, MLAs, bureaucrats, judges, and journalists within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.
The court described this distribution of state resources as “capricious” and “irrational.”
Read Also: Delhi HC Sets July 25 As Deadline for Centre on AAP Office Space Allotment
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta deemed the policy “unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory,” and in violation of Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality under the Constitution.
The verdict stated,
“The allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects a ‘capricious’ and ‘irrational’ approach. This is a classic case of executive action steeped in arbitrariness, but clothed in the guise of legitimacy, by stating that the ostensible purpose of the policy was to allot land to ‘deserving sections of society.'”
The state government’s policy, stripped of its facade, constitutes an abuse of power aimed solely at serving the affluent segments of society, while dismissing the equal rights of ordinary citizens and those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, the judgment stated.
The ruling noted,
“It would not be incorrect to assert that the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness, as articulated in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, is applicable,”
In a 64-page judgment authored by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the court ruled in favor of public interest, highlighting that the policy fosters inequality and undermines the principles of substantive equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The judgment observed,
“When the government allocates land at discounted rates to privileged individuals, it creates a system of inequality, granting them material advantages that remain out of reach for the average citizen. This preferential treatment suggests that certain individuals deserve more, not based on their public responsibilities or the common good, but merely due to their status.”
The ruling pointed out that the upper echelons of all three branches of government legislators, bureaucrats, and judges of both the Supreme Court and High Courts benefited from such preferential treatment.
It stated,
“Journalists, regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy, have also been included. These four pillars are expected to function as checks and balances against the arbitrary exercise of state power,”
It added,
“However, the distribution of such exceptional government benefits undermines the very essence of healthy checks and balances within our democratic framework”
To evaluate the facts against the standards of substantive equality, the court concluded that judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), All India Service officers, journalists, and others should not be treated as a distinct category for land allotment at discounted rates over others.
The objective of the policy perpetuates inequality, the verdict noted.
The bench remarked that the fundamental structure of these state policies is plagued by “unreasonableness and arbitrariness.”
Read Also: Delhi HC Sets July 25 As Deadline for Centre on AAP Office Space Allotment
The judgment explained,
“It reflects a colorable exercise of power, in which policymakers are granting valuable resources to their peers, leading to a cycle of improper distribution of state assets. The state holds all its resources in trust for its citizens, to be utilized in the broader public and social interest. The state, including its three branches—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—acts as trustees and agents that govern for the benefit of the citizens, who are the true beneficiaries,”
Consequently, the court annulled the 2005 government orders issued by the previous Andhra Pradesh government, along with subsequent orders from 2008 that allocated land at discounted rates to these select groups.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
