In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani, the Supreme Court observed: "We are of the opinion that Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS, journalists etc. cannot be treated as a separate category for allotment of land at a discounted basic value in preference to others. The object of the policy perpetuates inequality. The policy differentiates and bestows largesse to an advantaged section/group by resorting to discrimination and denial. It bars the more deserving, as well as those similarly situated, from access to the land at the same price. It promotes social-economic exclusion, to favour a small and privileged section/group. The policy does not meet the equality and fairness standards prescribed by the Constitution."
The Court observed state government's decision "suffers from the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness....whereby the policymakers are bestowing valuable resources to their peers and ilk, triggering a cycle of illegal distribution of State resources. The State holds all its resources in trust for its citizens, to be utilised in larger public and social interest. The State, including the three organs – Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary, are de facto trustees and agents/repositories which function and govern for the benefit of the citizens who are the beneficiaries"
Acknowledging that "the State has the discretion and duty under the Constitution, to distribute its resources to marginalised sections of society, or other imminent and deserving personalities, to the extent necessary to discharge their public functions", the Court observed that "Personalities who contribute to the nation's progress through excellence in sports or other public activities may also be compensated through reasonable and non-arbitrary distribution of State largesse. We would also like to clarify that a policy or law allotting land to public servants may be justifiable provided such allotment is within the confines of Article 14. Unless the classification satisfies the twin prong test and the substantive equality benchmark, the mandate of Article 14 is not met. The State cannot exercise discretion to benefit a select few elites disproportionately, especially ones who are already enjoying pre-existing benefits and advantages." The judgement has been authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, 51st Chief Justice of India.
He observed:"Land is a finite and highly valuable resource, particularly in densely populated urban areas, where access to land for housing and economic activities is increasingly scarce. When the government allocates land at discounted rates to the privileged few, it engenders a system of inequality, conferring upon them a material advantage that remains inaccessible to the common citizen. This preferential treatment conveys the message that certain individuals are entitled to more, not due to the necessities of their public office or the public good, but simply because of their status. Such practices foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens, who perceive these actions as corrupt or unjust, thereby eroding trust in democratic institutions. This policy undermines solidarity and fraternity, reinforcing societal hierarchies rather than actively working to dismantle them" observed the Court.
The bench of Justices Khanna and Dipankar Datta quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda of 2005 which classified MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIl India Service/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate. Supreme Court quashed the subsequent Memoranda issued in 2008 allotting the lands within the limits of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to these classes as bad in law because it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Telangana Government and the Cooperative Societies and their members against a 2010 judgment of the Telangana High Court. Justice Khanna observed:"We are also of the opinion that, accredited journalists cannot be treated as a separate class for such preferential treatment. In fact, a careful study of the policy indicates that higher echelons of all the three wings of the government, —legislators, bureaucrats, and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts—have been afforded such preferential treatment. Journalists, who are considered the fourth pillar of democracy, have also been included. These four pillars of democracy are expected to act as checks and balances on the arbitrary exercise of the State's power. However, the distribution of such extraordinary State benefits renders nugatory the very optics of healthy checks and balances within our democratic system."
No comments:
Post a Comment