SC Quashes Andhra Pradesh GoMs Classifying MPs, MLAs, State Govt. Officers, SC & HC Judges, Journalists As A Separate Class For Allotment Of Land At Basic Rate
The Supreme Court has quashed a GoM classifying MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate.
The Court found the allotment of land by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under several Government Memoranda (GoMs) issued between 2005 and 2008 bad in law being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeals arose from the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which had partially allowed Writ Petitions challenging the allotments made under GoMs. The High Court held that the land allotments violated public interest, directing the restoration of the allocated land to the government and requiring fresh allotments only under revised policies consistent with constitutional principles.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta held, “We dismiss the appeals preferred by the State of Telangana, the Cooperative Societies and their members, and we allow the appeal…challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said Writ Petitions are allowed, thereby issuing a Writ of certiorari and quashing GoM Nos. 243 and 244 to the extent they classify MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS/State Government, Judges of the Constitutional Courts, and journalists as a separate class for allotment of land at the basic rate.”
Senior Advocates Prashant Bhushan, S.S. Prasad, Menaka Guruswamy, K. Ramakanth Reddy, Rajshekhar Rao, A.M. Singhvi and Rajiv Dutta represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija, Rajiv Dutta, Rajshekhar Rao and Ragenth Basant appeared for the Respondents.
The GoMs issued in 2005 aimed to establish a comprehensive policy for managing land resources and providing housing to various categories, including public servants, members of the judiciary, and weaker sections of society. However, the Petitions alleged that the policy disproportionately benefited privileged individuals, including MLAs, MPs, and senior officers, at basic rates, undermining the principle of equitable distribution of public resources.
The High Court found that the allotment policy was arbitrary and unconstitutional. It held that the preferential allotments at concessional rates violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of equality. The Court observed that the policy did not have an “overwhelming legitimate public purpose” and instead served the interests of a select group of affluent persons.
The Supreme Court noted that the core framework of the policies suffered from “the malaise of unreasonableness and arbitrariness. It reeks of colourable exercise of power whereby the policymakers are bestowing valuable resources to their peers and ilk, triggering a cycle of illegal distribution of State resources.”
The Bench clarified that the State holds all its resources in trust for its citizens, to be utilised in larger public and social interest. “The State, including the three organs – Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary, are de facto trustees and agents/repositories which function and govern for the benefit of the citizens who are the beneficiaries,” it clarified further.
Therefore, the Bench held that the allotment policy failed to satisfy the requirements of the two-pronged classification test coupled with arbitrariness. “As noted earlier, the jurisprudence surrounding equality law has evolved beyond a purely technical analysis, embracing an approach that considers not only the intent behind legislation or policy but also its real-world impact,” the Court stated.
“We are also of the opinion that, accredited journalists cannot be treated as a separate class for such preferential treatment. In fact, a careful study of the policy indicates that higher echelons of all the three wings of the government, —legislators, bureaucrats, and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts—have been afforded such preferential treatment. Journalists, who are considered the fourth pillar of democracy, have also been included,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “At this juncture, it is worth noting that during the pendency of the Writ Petition before the High Court, several members of the Judiciary, to their credit, decided to withdraw their applications for allotment of land. Recognizing the constitutional limitations and acknowledging that such allotment would violate Article 14, they made this decision upon thoughtful consideration. However, many others continued to defend the allotment, vigorously presenting arguments that they constituted a separate class with a rational nexus to the policy. These arguments, however, are devoid of merit and must be unequivocally rejected.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals by the State.
Cause Title: State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Dr. Rao, V.B.J. Chelikani & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 894)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Prashant Bhushan, S.S. Prasad, Menaka Guruswamy, K. Ramakanth Reddy, Rajshekhar Rao, A.M. Singhvi, and Rajiv Dutta; Advocates Anurag Tiwary, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Ashutosh Srivastava, Komal Agrawal, Astha Choudhary, Pawan Sharma, Anuradha Dutt, Anuj Shah, Amit Bhandari, Siddharth Dutta, Neha Singh, and Subasri Jaganathan; AOR Manoj C. Mishra, C. K. Sucharita, Rajeev Singh, B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Devina Sehgal, and Kumar Dushyant Singh
Respondents: Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija, Rajiv Dutta, Rajshekhar Rao and Ragenth Basant; Advocates Prerna Singh, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Meena K Poulose, Sanjeev Kaushik, Mantika Haryani, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Vinod Kumar Gupta, et al; AOR Guntur Prabhakar, G. Indira, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, C. K. Sasi, Meena K Poulose, Promila, B. Krishna Prasad, Gopal Singh, Amrish Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar, N. Rajaraman, Astha Sharma, Amit Pawan, Narendra Kumar, et al
