Rehabilitation is not a fundamental right: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that landowners whose properties are acquired for a public purpose cannot invoke the right to livelihood to demand rehabilitation or alternative land as a matter of legal right.

- Utkarsh Anand [e-mail]

In a significant verdict on the scope of Article 21 (right to life and livelihood) in land acquisition cases, the top court held that the Constitution guarantees fair compensation for such acquisition, but not rehabilitation beyond what is provided in law or specific policies.

A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that the deprivation of land for a public purpose, when carried out in accordance with the law, does not violate the right to life and livelihood under Article 21.

The court also clarified that the state is not under a legal obligation to provide alternative land or housing to oustees unless such rehabilitation is expressly provided under a policy, and even then, the policy must be applied fairly and within its boundaries.

"We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable," the bench held in its judgment on July 14, rejecting the claim of landowners from Haryana who had approached the court seeking alternative plots at subsidised rates as a matter of right after their land was acquired for public purposes.

The judgment, which arose from a series of petitions filed by affected landowners in Haryana's Kaithal district, also served as a cautionary message to states across India. Calling the litigation "an eye opener", the court said that populist or appeasement-driven rehabilitation schemes floated by governments often end up complicating the acquisition process and result in prolonged litigation.