Latest News
Supreme Court to Scrutinize Mandatory Arbitration in Land Acquisition: A Constitutional Challenge
Supreme Court to Scrutinize Mandatory Arbitration in Land Acquisition: A Constitutional Challenge
Introduction:
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a plea challenging the mandatory arbitration proceedings for the determination of compensation in the land acquisition process under the National Highways Act. The plea argues that Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, which imposes mandatory arbitration on land losers with a pre-determined arbitrator, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan has issued notices to the Union government, the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and others involved in the matter.
Background:
The writ petition, filed through advocate Madhusmita Bora, not only challenges the constitutionality of Section 3G but also contests the validity of Section 31, which the Supreme Court has previously declared unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 in various judgments. Under the current provisions of the National Highways Act, if the compensation determined by the Competent Authority is disputed by either the NHAI or the landowner, an application can be filed under Section 3G(5), empowering an arbitrator to determine the compensation amount. Importantly, these compensation disputes are kept out of the jurisdiction of the courts, making arbitration proceedings mandatory for the land losers.
Constitutional Challenge:
The plea argues that the imposition of mandatory arbitration proceedings, with the appointment of an arbitrator unilaterally by the central government, raises serious constitutional concerns. The arbitrator, typically a government employee, is perceived as biased due to an inherent interest in the outcome of the dispute, considering the land is acquired by the government for its use. The petitioner contends that this arrangement deprives the land-loser of the option to seek recourse through the courts, thereby infringing upon their fundamental rights.
Unreasonable Burden on Land Losers:
The petition highlights the inherent unfairness of forcing land losers into mandatory statutory arbitration, where the appointment of the arbitrator is non-consensual and tilted in favour of the Central government. This setup not only deprives the affected parties of a fair and impartial dispute resolution mechanism but also places them in a situation where they have no choice but to accept the decision of an arbitrator whose allegiance is seemingly aligned with the government's interests. This, according to the plea, is an unreasonable burden on the land losers who find themselves in a system that lacks the necessary safeguards for an impartial resolution of compensation disputes.
Challenges to Section 31:
In addition to challenging Section 3G, the petition contests the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the National Highways Act. The Supreme Court's prior declarations of Section 31 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 add weight to the argument against the provision. The plea asserts that the continued enforcement of Section 31 undermines the principles of equality before the law and denies land losers their right to approach the judiciary for a fair and unbiased resolution of compensation disputes.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision to examine the constitutional challenges against mandatory arbitration proceedings in land acquisition under the National Highways Act marks a crucial turning point in the ongoing debate over the rights of land losers. The petition, filed by advocate Madhusmita Bora, not only questions the validity of Section 3G but also underscores the need for a fair and impartial mechanism that respects the constitutional rights of individuals affected by land acquisition. As the matter is set to be heard on January 29, all eyes will be on the apex court to see how it addresses these pressing issues and whether it brings about reforms to ensure a more equitable and just resolution of compensation disputes in the context of highway development.
- The plea argues that Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, which imposes mandatory arbitration on land-losers with a pre-determined arbitrator, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The arbitrator, typically a government employee, is perceived as biased due to an inherent interest in the outcome of the dispute, considering the land is acquired by the government for its use.
- This setup not only deprives the affected parties of a fair and impartial dispute resolution mechanism but also places them in a situation where they have no choice but to accept the decision.
