Today’s Current Affairs: Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover. The court emphasized the importance of following mandatory procedures for compulsory acquisition and granting fair compensation to owners. The judgment highlighted the right to property as a constitutional and human right, stressing the need for proper procedure and respect for citizens’ rights before depriving them of their property. The verdict laid down seven basic procedural rights that the state should uphold, including the right to notice, fair compensation, and efficient acquisition processes. The ruling serves as a crucial safeguard for property owners against unconstitutional acquisition practices.
1. What did the Supreme Court recently do to protect private property?
- a) Allowed arbitrary state takeover
- b) Held compulsory acquisition without following procedures as constitutional
- c) Declared the right to property as unconstitutional
- d) Upheld the importance of following mandatory procedures for acquisition
Answer: d) Upheld the importance of following mandatory procedures for acquisition
2. According to the judgment, what is protected as a constitutional and human right?
- a) The right to property
- b) The right to compensation
- c) The right to eminent domain
- d) The right to acquire public property
Answer: a) The right to property
3. What did the Calcutta High Court order the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to pay?
- a) ₹1 lakh as costs within 30 days
- b) ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days
- c) ₹10 lakh as costs within 90 days
- d) No costs were ordered to be paid
Answer: b) ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days
4. According to the judgment, what does Article 300A provide?
- a) The power of eminent domain vested in the state
- b) No person shall be deprived of property without consent
- c) The right to acquire property for public use
- d) The duty of the state to inform citizens of property acquisition
Answer: b) No person shall be deprived of property without consent
What significant step did the Supreme Court take on Thursday?
The Supreme Court took a significant step to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover for a “public purpose”.
How is the right to property protected?
The right to property is protected as a constitutional right and has even been interpreted to be a human right, according to a judgment by a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar.
What did Justice Narasimha observe regarding compulsory acquisition?
Justice Narasimha observed that compulsory acquisition without following mandatory procedures followed by a grant of compensation to the owners will not make the accession constitutional.
What did the judgment by the Supreme Court uphold?
The judgment upheld a Calcutta High Court order rejecting an appeal filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation defending its acquisition of a private land and ordered the corporation to pay ₹5 lakh as costs within 60 days.
What did Justice Narasimha lay down regarding the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A”?
Justice Narasimha laid down seven basic procedural rights of private citizens that constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A” that the state should respect before depriving them of their private property.
Today's Current Affairs brings a significant ruling by the Supreme Court to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover. The Court emphasized that compulsory acquisition without following proper procedures and granting fair compensation is unconstitutional. The right to property is considered a constitutional and human right, according to Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar. The judgment upheld a Calcutta High Court order, requiring the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to pay ₹5 lakh as costs for acquiring private land without following due process. The Court outlined seven basic procedural rights that citizens must have before being deprived of their property, including notice, the right to be heard, fair compensation, and timely acquisition processes. This ruling sets a precedent for safeguarding property rights and ensuring justice for landowners.
