However, what would happen if a landowner refuses to accept the compensation amount, even when the acquirer (such as a mining company or a company setting up a factory) offers to pay the money and has provided the money to the relevant government authority? What if it is unclear who exactly owns the land, or who would receive how much share of said land? Would Section 24(2) still apply or would it be unfair to the acquirer?

The Pune Municipal Corporation Case – 24 January 2014

The purpose of a five judge Bench to decide conflicting opinions of three-judge benches is not to simply take a poll to involve more judges in the deliberative process to ensure a better outcome. Therefore, when a judge who has already expressed an opinion in the matter is on the Bench (in this case Arun Mishra) but the other judges who have expressed an opinion are not (in this case Mohan Shantanagoudar), it would be improper and unfair as the deliberations among judges would be vitiated by one of their colleagues already having made up his mind.

Yes, judges are supposed to be fair and impartial. However, it’s only natural to expect a judge to favour his own interpretation in this circumstance. Justice Mishra went as far as to declare the 2014 decision per incuriam – he didn’t simply disagree with the old position, he wanted it to have never been so. This was controversial in itself, as convention (for instance, see the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dawoodi Bohra case) says if a three judge Bench disagrees with an earlier decision of another three judge Bench, they should not just overrule the old decision but immediately refer the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. Justice Mishra failed to do so in his 2018 judgment even though Justice Shantanagoudar disagreed with holding the old decision per incuriam .

“Ultimately, the question is whether a fair-minded and reasonably informed person, on correct facts, would reasonably entertain a doubt on the impartiality of the Judge.”

Given the case’s circumstances, it’s hard to say the standard hasn’t been fulfilled, as lawyer and constitutional law scholar Gautam Bhatia writes in a blog post : “What would a detached and objective observer conclude upon seeing this? They would conclude that in this five-judge bench, at least one vote – the vote of the senior-most judge – is more or less decided (and it is unsurprising that the All India Farmer Association has already written to the Chief Justice making exactly this point).” As a tweet thread by journalist Kumar Shambhav Shrivastava shows, there appears to be a lot riding on this question of interpretation, involving some of the country’s biggest corporations, making it more important for the court to ensure there isn’t even the slightest whiff of impropriety over how it is to be decided – Caesar’s wife and all that. Will this mean Justice Arun Mishra recusing himself from the case when it comes up for hearing? Will any of the parties involved in the case ask for the same? All eyes will be on the court proceedings to find out.

ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD

Members Only

Justice Mishra to Decide Land Acquisition Issue: Improper or Not?

The Constitution Bench will have to decide if Justice Mishra’s judgment from February 2018 stands correct.

Vakasha Sachdev

Updated: 15 Oct 2019, 3:36 PM IST

Law

Small

Medium

Large

On Tuesday, 15 October, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearing five cases related to the interpretation of the law on land acquisition in India.

The Bench will comprise Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat, as per a notice issued by the Supreme Court registry on Sunday.

Why is this newsworthy?

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Land Acquisition Compensation Justice Arun Mishra

Published: 14 Oct 2019, 7:20 PM IST