The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Revival of Operation, Amendment, and Validation) Act, 2019 which was to be applied retrospectively from 2013.
A Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar rejected the pleas made by G. Mohan Rao and other petitioners, who contended that the 2019 state law and its notification should be struck down as “unconstitutional, illegal and void”.
The challenge to the revival of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme Act, 1978; Tamil Nadu Acquisition for Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997; and the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (‘State enactments’) by way of a retrospective, validating enactment had been mounted on the ground that the 2019 Act was a legislative tool to revive unconstitutional enactments and an attempt to overrule a 2017 Madras High Court judgment. By the said 2017 judgment, the Madras High Court had struck down the State-introduced Section 105A of the 2013 Act, which had exempted land acquisitions made under three State enactments from the purview of the 2013 Act.
On 19.07.2019, the State Government tabled a Bill to revive the operation of the these Acts and the same was named as Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 . This Act received the assent of the President in terms of Article 254(2) on 02.12.2019 and was applied retrospectively from 26.09.2013 with the objective to validate all pending acquisitions on and after that date under the State enactments, , otherwise quashed by the High Court.
The Petitioners before the apex court had claimed that the legislative tool adopted by state legislature to revive “unconstitutional enactments” was a direct attempt to overrule and nullify the high court’s July 2019 verdict, which had quashed all pending acquisition proceedings under three enactments on or after September 27, 2013, and the same was impermissible in constitutional scheme as it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Petitioners had said the purpose of the 2013 Act was to protect agriculturists and landowners from losing their lands, sometimes owned through generations, without reasonable compensation was defeated.
The Bench highlighted that Article 254 is a manifestation of decentralized law¬-making. Pertinently, Article 254 (2) of the Constitution provides that a State law in conflict with a Parliamentary law on a concurrent subject would prevail in the State, provided it has received presidential assent.
The Court opined that it would prevail in the State even if it is repugnant to the 2013 Act , given that the introduction of the 2019 Act was found to have been done in line with Article 254 (2).
The bench also held that there is no irreconcilability between the High Court judgment and the 2019 Act. The 2019 Act is an evolution, not reiteration of the earlier position much less regression. The bench also rejected the contention that retrospectivity from 26.09.2013 was fatal to the 2019 Act as on that date, there was no 2013 Act in operation and when the 2013 Act came into operation on 27.09.2013, the State enactments would again become repugnant.
The apex court also dealt with the issues, including whether the state legislature had the legislative competence to enact the 2019 Act. “The constitutional scheme and decisions of this court on the subject untangle a settled position that the power of a legislature to legislate retrospectively is within the constitutional bounds,” it said.
Also Read: CBSE Class 10: Delhi HC refuses to hear plea seeking internal assessment criteria
The Division Bench hais said the Indian Constitution ordains a structure of governance wherein the three organs of the State are entrusted with independent functions. “Thus, we the people of India have embraced a system of separation of powers for securing checks and balances. Consequently, in day-¬to-¬day functioning of the government institutions many a times a perception emerges about the ‘overstepping’ between three organs.”
“It emanates from the basic principle that a legislature is deemed to be the main protagonist of public interest at large. For, the legislature is the bulwark of a democratic polity. It is also beyond debate that a legislature can validate an invalidated law by removing the cause for such invalidity through a legislative exercise,” the court said.
“We hold the 2019 Act to be a legitimate legislative exercise and find it to be consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment. Thus, we dismiss the present batch writ petitions”, the order reads.