Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 [READ JUDGMENT]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019 (2019 Act), which had sought to revive three State land acquisition laws preceding the Parliament's 2013 Land Acquisition Act (2013 Act). [G Mohan and ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors].The three State enactments are the 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’). On Tuesday, a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheswari found the 2019 Act to be "a legitimate legislative exercise consistent with and within the four corners of Article 254 of the Constitution of India and also of the High Court judgment.".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 most peculiar feature of Article 254(2) is the recognition of existence of repugnancy between the law made by the Parliament and State law and rendering that repugnancy inconsequential upon procurement of Presidential assent," the Court explained.Given that the introduction of the 2019 Act was found to have been done in line with Article 254 (2), the Court opined that it would prevail in the State even if it is repugnant to the 2013 Act."After duly complying with the requirements of Article 254(2), the Court is left with nothing to achieve by identifying repugnancy between the laws because the same has already been identified, accepted and validated as per the sanction of the Constitution under Article 254(2) ... Moreover, the Court ought not to nullify a law made in compliance with Article 254(2) on the sole ground of repugnancy. For, repugnancy, in such cases, is said to have been constitutionalized", the Court said..The Controversy.The challenge to the revival of these three laws by way of a retrospective, validating enactment (i.e. the 2019 Act) 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. Pertinently, 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..Madras HC quashes all land acquisitions since Sept 2013 by TN Govt under three old State laws.All pending land acquisition proceedings under the three State enactments on or after September 27, 2013 were also quashed by the High Court. In introducing the 2019 Act, the State government also sought to save these land acquisitions. The 2019 Act received presidential assent on December 2, 2019.The broad reasons that impelled the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions challenging the 2019 Act have been detailed below. .2019 Act does not violate 2017 High Court Judgment.The Supreme Court reasoned the primary defect pointed out by the Madras High Court was the impermissibility of using Section 105A as a tool for reviving the three State enactments sought to be exempted from the 2013 Act since they were rendered repugnant after the 2013 Act came into effect."This, in our view, is the sole material basis of the judgment of the High Court," the top Court said. In other words, the "method of revival of the State laws" was questioned by the High Court, it was noted. The Supreme Court further recalled that the High court had called for a re-enactment of these laws under Article 254 (2) of the Constitution if they were to be revived. Since the State government has now revived the three State enactments by way of the 2019 Act and obtained Presidential assent for the same in line with Article 254 (2), the Court opined that there was no infirmity in the same. To put things in perspective, the top Court opined that the defect pointed out by the High Court would have remained had Section 105A been re-enacted instead into the 2013 Act.The Court also rejected arguments that the 2019 Act does not remove all defects pointed out by the High Court. In this regard, the top court opined that failure to import all provisions of the law made by the Parliament in the State enactments would not constitute "non-removal of defects." Such a stance would be a palpable misreading of the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court said. The Court further noted that the State legislature has made a conscious effort to bring four material aspects of land acquisition under the three State enactments at par with the 2013 Act i.e., compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and infrastructure facilities."We see 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 thereof," the Court eventually concluded..Article 254 allows co-existence of Union and State laws, even if repugnant, provided President assents.In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2019 Act in view of it having complied with Article 254 (2) of the Constitution of India.The provision "gives an opportunity to the legislature to which the repugnant law belonged (State legislature) to revive it by obtaining the Presidential assent, thereby providing impetus to the competency of the State legislature to meet with the fallouts of repugnancy," the Court observed.The Bench added that Article 254 does not contemplate that the State law and Parliamentary law should be the same in toto. This would render the whole objective of permitting the revival of laws through Presidential assent a pointless exercise, it was noted. Rather, the Court proceeded to point out that Article 245 contemplates the coexistence of Union and State laws, even if repugnant, provided that the repugnancy is assented to by the President. ."Article 254 is a manifestation of decentralized lawmaking and recognition of the competency of the State legislature to modulate dispensation as may be expedient to that State, upon seeking Presidential assent for such deviation," the Court said..The Supreme Court found that the revival of the three Tamil Nadu State enactments through the 2019 Act sufficiently complied with Article 254 (2)..In this case, the State legislature was found to have duly passed the 2019 Act on a subject in the concurrent list, in the presence of a law made by the Parliament (2013 Act) and obtained Presidential assent for the same after duly placing the State law before the President and duly stating the reasons why his assent was sought.."A priori, we hold that this is in compliance of Article 254(2)," the Court concluded..On making the 2019 Act retrospectively applicable to a time before the 2013 Act was made.The Court also rejected arguments that the 2019 Act is invalid given that it was made retrospectively applicable from September 26, 2013, a day before the operation of the 2013 Act.The underlying purpose of retrospectivity is to cure transactions in the past by making law in the present not compete with laws existing at the time, the Court observed. "In this case, the objective was to save and validate past acquisitions under the three State enactments, which were valid until the commencement of the 2013 Act but stood quashed due to the High Court decision."While it may appear anomalous to operationalise the 2019 Act from a day prior to the making of the 2013 Act, it does not make any impact on the validity of the same, the Court opined. Rather, the Bench said that this was done as a measure of abundant caution by the State, and rightly so. "It is obviously relevant to overcome the repugnancy corresponding to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Adopting any other interpretation would not only be unwarranted as per the constitutional scheme but would also strike at the very purpose of a retrospective reviving and validating enactment. More so, it would open a pandora’s box of unforeseen conflicts," the Court added. .While dismissing the petitions in light of these observations, however, the Court clarified that the petitioners may raise issues not dealt with in the present judgment in other pending cases arising out of the High Court judgment..Notably, the Court has not examined whether the three State enactments entail discrimination or violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. "We are leaving this contention open as it is beyond the limited scope of our consideration herein," the Supreme Court said. .The petitioners in the case were represented by senior advocate P Wilson and advocate Suhrith Parthasarthy. Attorney General KK Venugopal advanced arguments for the respondent-State of Tamil Nadu. Senior advocate Aman Sinha also appeared for a respondent..[Read Judgment]