Union of India v. Tarsem Singh
Background
In an earlier 2019 judgment (Union of India v. Tarsem Singh), the Supreme Court had held that landowners whose land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) between 1997 and 2015 were entitled to "solatium" and "interest" - benefits that a special provision of the highways law had wrongly denied them, treating them unequally compared to other landowners. The NHAI later filed an application asking the Court to clarify that this 2019 ruling should apply only prospectively (from 2019 onwards), not to older, already-acquired land, citing a potential financial burden of roughly Rs. 92-100 crores.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected NHAI's request, holding that making the 2019 ruling prospective-only would defeat its entire purpose, which was to correct the unequal treatment of landowners whose land was acquired under the flawed provision. The Court reasoned that the financial burden argument could not override the constitutional right to equal treatment and fair compensation, especially since the highway costs are ultimately passed on to road users rather than borne personally by government officials or contractors. It also held that granting solatium and interest does not amount to unlawfully "reopening" final acquisition decisions, since it only adds compensatory benefits without disturbing the acquisition itself; the miscellaneous application was dismissed and the connected appeals were allowed in line with the 2019 ruling.
Lesson Learnt
Once the Supreme Court strikes down a law as creating unequal treatment between similarly situated citizens, the government cannot later ask the Court to limit that ruling's benefit only to future cases just because correcting the past would be administratively or financially inconvenient.