C.S. Gopalakrishnan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
Background
Tamil Nadu had enacted its own land acquisition laws (for harijan welfare schemes, industrial purposes, and highways) which received Presidential assent to survive despite conflicting with the central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When Parliament replaced that central law with the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the State laws became void for repugnancy; Tamil Nadu then amended the new central Act (inserting Section 105-A) to exempt its own laws, again with Presidential assent. Landowners whose properties were being acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 challenged this revival as arbitrary and discriminatory compared to the more landowner-friendly central Act, and after partial relief from the Madras High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Highways Act could not be struck down merely because it lacked some of the timelines and protections found in the central 2013 Act, since the State law was deliberately designed to enable faster acquisition for highway projects: a legitimate and previously upheld legislative purpose. The Court found no arbitrary discretion was left to the State to arbitrarily pick between State and Central law, since the Validation Act of 2019 expressly channelled highway acquisitions to the Highways Act. Individual grievances about delay in specific acquisitions, the Court noted, could be raised separately on their own facts but could not be used to invalidate the statute itself. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
Lesson Learnt
A State law that survives constitutional scrutiny through Presidential assent is not rendered invalid simply because it offers fewer procedural safeguards than a general central law, so long as it serves a distinct and legitimate purpose such as speeding up acquisition for public infrastructure; individual delays or lapses must be challenged case-by-case, not used to strike down the entire law.