Supreme Court Hearing on Land Acquisition Case

Why in news?

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing a case to clarify the interpretation of the law on land acquisition.

What is the case on?

Two three-judge Bench rulings delivered by the apex court in 2014 and 2018 on the same issue differed in their interpretations.
This has prompted the court to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
The hearing will decide the legality of several cases of land acquisition that took place across the country before 2009.
The matter also raises significant questions on judicial discipline.
It relates to how judgments of the court are applied while deciding subsequent cases on similar issues.

What is the provision in question?

The case is specifically over the provision related to compensation awarded to landowners.
The issue involves Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The 2013 Act replaced the colonial 1894 land acquisition law.
Section 24(2) says that in cases where acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 law and compensation had been determined -

the proceedings would lapse if the state did not take possession of the land for 5 years (and)
had not paid compensation to the landowner

Once the proceedings lapse under the old law, the acquisition process would be initiated again under the new law.
This would allow the owner to get a higher compensation.
The term “paid” in the provision needed interpretation.
Since it placed the responsibility on the government, cases were filed before the courts soon after the law was implemented.

What were the two conflicting judgments?

2014 - In 2014, the first such case involving the interpretation of the new law was the Pune Municipal Authority v Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
A three-judge Bench said that the state depositing the compensation in its own treasury cannot be equated with the landowners being “paid”.
In exceptional circumstances, where the landowner refuses the compensation, the sum can be deposited with the court.
But, a deposit in the state’s own treasury would not suffice.
This ruling was followed as the precedent by High Courts in several cases, and was affirmed by the apex court itself in 2016.
2018 - In February 2018, a three-judge Bench ruled in Indore Developmental Authority v Shailendra on a similar issue.
It held that in cases where the landowner had refused compensation, depositing it with the treasury was sufficient.
So, the state was not obligated to deposit it with the court.
In doing so, the court also invalidated the 2014 ruling and declared it “per incuriam” (as lacking in regard for the law and facts).

What does “per incuriam” mean?

‘Incuria’ is Latin for “carelessness”, and when a judgment is declared per incuriam, it means that the case was wrongly decided.
This means that the judges were ill-informed about the applicable law.
A judgment can also be declared per incuriam if it has materially deviated from earlier precedents.
A judgment that is per incuriam has no legal force or validity and does not have to be counted as a precedent.

Why was a referral to a larger Bench made?

Days after the 2018 verdict was pronounced, another three-judge Bench noticed the inconsistency in the two judgements.
Thus, the bench stayed all cases relating to the concerned provision of the land acquisition Act in High Courts across the country.
It also asked “other Benches of the Supreme Court” to not take up the issue until it was decided by a larger Bench.
In oral observations, a Judge strongly criticised the 2018 ruling.
It was said that the verdict had deviated from “virgin principles” of the judiciary in declaring a verdict of equal Bench strength as per incuriam.

Why is a ruling being invalidated contentious?

The controversy arises not only as the 2014 ruling was declared per incuriam, but also because it was done so by a Bench of equal strength.
In the judicial system that is followed in India, a judgment of the court is used as the basis or precedent for determining future cases.
In the US, all justices of the Supreme Court sit together for hearing every case.
Unlike this, the Supreme Court in India sits in Benches of two or three.
So, the practice of following precedent ensures consistency and certainty in law.
Also, a ruling of the Supreme Court is binding on all High Courts.
Likewise, a ruling of the Supreme Court by Benches of larger or equal strength is binding on other Benches of the court.
So, a three-judge Bench cannot hold a decision by another three-judge Bench to be per incuriam.
Similarly, a Bench cannot ask other Benches to not follow a judgment.
It can only ask for consideration by a larger Bench if it disagrees with the precedent.
Larger Bench rulings are preferred to make sure that the law laid down by the court is predictable as far as possible.

Source: Indian Express