SC upholds UPSIDC's land cancellation to Kamala Nehru Memorial Trust
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh rejected the Trust's appeal against the 2017 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had affirmed the cancellation of the allotment originally made in September 2003 and annulled in December 2006.
While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court delivered a sharp rebuke to UPSIDC, observing that the land was allotted 'within just two months' and 'without any proper evaluation of public benefit".
The Court held that such allocation practices violated the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates that state-held resources be allocated transparently, with due diligence, and solely for the benefit of the public.
'The Doctrine requires that allocation decisions be preceded by a thorough assessment of public benefits, beneficiary credentials, and safeguards ensuring continued compliance with stated purposes,' the Court said.
The Bench criticised UPSIDC for failing to adopt a transparent and competitive process in allocating such a large tract of industrial land. 'This betrays the fiduciary relationship between the State and its citizens,' the Court remarked, stressing that state authorities must ensure accountability in managing public assets.
The judgment noted that no verifiable evidence was considered by UPSIDC regarding the economic benefits, employment potential, environmental impact, or alignment with regional development objectives before making the allotment to the Trust. 'Such lapses not only deprived the public exchequer of potential revenue due to the appreciated value of the land but also created a system where privileged access supersedes equal opportunity,' the Court observed.
The Supreme Court further flagged concerns over UPSIDC's eagerness to re-allocate the land to another entity during the pendency of the litigation. 'We, therefore, consider it necessary to examine whether UPSIDC's procedure for industrial land allotment meets standards of administrative propriety, particularly in light of the Public Trust Doctrine mandating that public resources be managed with due diligence, fairness, and in conformity with public interest,' the Court said.
In a judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant, the Court laid down binding directions to reform the process of industrial land allotment in Uttar Pradesh.
It directed, 'The State Government of Uttar Pradesh and UPSIDC are directed to ensure that any such allotment in the future be made in a transparent, non-discriminatory and fair manner by ensuring that such allotment process fetches maximum revenue and also achieves the larger public interest like industrial development priorities, environmental sustainability, and regional economic objectives.'
Also, the Court asked that the subject land be re-allotted strictly in accordance with the procedure above.
The Court directed UPSIDC for transparent, non-discriminatory Industrial Land Allocation in Uttar Pradesh.
UNI SNG RN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
40 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
SHRC demands action as custodial violence cases highlight need for reform
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on June 24, 2025, directed the TN government to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to V Priyadharshini, a complainant, and recover it from K Santhamoorthi for violating her human rights when he was the Inspector of C2 Race Course police station in Coimbatore. The order passed by SHRC member V Kannadasan, which directed the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Santhamoorthi, quoted Section 58 of the Police Act, 2006, on the social responsibilities of the police. Priyadharshini had approached the police with a complaint against her father and brother of criminal intimidation and use of filthy language. Instead of conducting an impartial inquiry, the Inspector sided with the accused and intimidated her. The mandate of the police is to protect and uphold the dignity of people. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures every person the right of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises right to life, liberty and security of everyone and says, 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The Supreme Court and the various high courts have repeatedly issued guidelines to the police on how to treat people humanely. Yet, we read and, now with the visual media, see how brutal the police force is in its day-to-day duties.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Call it back
There are salient differences between Left Wing Extremism (LWE) — which has been flagged by successive governments at the Centre and in the states as a grave internal security threat — and 'urban Maoism'. The former, an insurgency against the state, has targeted security forces, government officials, civilians and politicians and invited a whole-of-government response that includes armed engagement, development work and a host of other policies and actions. The latter is a political term of relatively recent vintage that has been deployed controversially against activists, students and academics who have expressed dissent with the dominant ideology or political establishment. Disturbingly, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, passed by the lower House, conflates the two. Its loosely defined scope and stringent provisions raise spectres of state overreach and misuse. Armed with vague and opaque definitions, it invites the danger of blurring the lines between extremist violence and non-violent dissent. The Bill fails the test established by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962 in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar. Words and ideas, no matter how critical of the government, even the state itself, do not constitute sedition or a crime unless they can be directly linked to an incitement to violence. The Bill provides for a jail term of up to seven years for 'any action' that is 'spoken or written' or 'by visual representation' that can be construed as a 'danger to peace and tranquillity' or interferes with 'maintenance of public order', and it allows for attaching the property of an accused. In this respect, it is more stringent than the most controversial sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Democracy, in practice, is the right to speak and write, to draw and debate, to disagree and criticise. The Constitution recognises this in its guarantees of the fundamental rights to speech and expression. The Special Public Security Act violates that promise in letter and spirit. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who tabled the Bill, said that it was needed to counter organisations that are 'brainwashing the youth'. He should have more faith in the maturity of the young. He spoke of how LWE influence is waning in the state, as in much of the 'red corridor', which, he said, is down from four districts to two blocks. Why, then, raise the bogey of 'urban Maoism'? It is difficult not to see the Bill as an attempt to arrogate more powers to the state and to help it to criminalise political-ideological opponents. The Maharashtra government must rethink the law.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Express View: On Bihar SIR, listen to the Court
The Supreme Court has not stayed or stopped the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, an exercise that has stoked confusion on the ground and raised spectres of disenfranchisement. But that's not the most important message after the EC's day in court Thursday. It is, instead, this: The Court has flagged important issues that the Commission would do well to heed and act upon, before it files its counter-affidavit in a fortnight — the SC is scheduled to hear the matter again on July 28. Even as the Court has framed its concerns with a respectful tentativeness, given that it is addressing a constitutional authority, the EC must know that they resonate widely. It needs to ask itself whether the electoral roll revision exercise — unprecedented not in itself, but for asking for documentation at the stage of enumeration, for shifting the burden of proof onto voters, and for disregarding the sanctity of existing electoral rolls — can be carried out according to due process with only months to go before the Bihar election. It needs to consider seriously the Court's suggestion that, 'in the interest of justice', it should include more accessible and ubiquitous options like the Aadhaar card, ration card and voter ID card in its list of required documents. The Court has asked the EC to give reasons for not including these. The EC must know that the onus is now on it to prove that it is acting in good faith. It is ironic that the EC, for long seen to be one of India's most trusted institutions, should find itself in the dock. The reforms initiated and supervised by the EC in a sprawling country of staggering diversities have ensured that the Indian election sets the gold standard for the conduct of free and fair polls, and for ensuring that no voter is left out, every vote is counted in. Now, that institution must show that it also listens, that it knows when not to stand on prestige. For, at stake is its own record and legacy, and more importantly, the integrity and credibility of the process that it has refined and fine-tuned so painstakingly. Apart from suggesting the inclusion of three documents in the EC list, and pointing out that the tight timeline creates practical difficulties, including in the matter of providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing in cases of deletion, the Court has also drawn attention to the question of remit. It is the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the EC, the SC has rightly said, whose task it is to ascertain or verify citizenship. But most of all, the EC must listen to the Court because it is giving the Commission another opportunity to listen to the voice of India's voters. Ground reports in this paper have captured some of those voices, especially in vulnerable sections that are more likely to fall through the cracks of a complicated bureaucratic exercise. The EC must listen to the undocumented people, the poor and the migrants, the SCs and STs and extremely backward castes, and to the women who move from their parents' homes to their marital homes. It must update and clean the electoral rolls, of course, and make them more accurate. But it must do so without making the process arduous for the people, and without stoking their anxieties.
