Even if contrary to central law, State Act can't be invalidated after President's assent: SC

The Supreme Court has declared said that a state law, after receiving assent of the President can't be invalidated on the ground of manifest arbitrariness and discrimination, even if it runs contrary to the provisions of the central law on a subject.

A bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar has rejected a plea against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for being repugnant to central law of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

"The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013," the bench said.

Read | SC says it's not an institution to 'sermonise' society on morals and ethics

Citing Article 254(2) of the Constitution, the court said that its very foundation and basis is that even if a particular state enactment runs contrary to the provisions of a central legislation on the same subject, it would stand protected after receiving the assent of the President of India.

"Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that disparity and discrimination would be writ large between the two enactments and aspects relating to their implementation. In such a situation, the question of comparing the two legislations, for the purpose of making out a case under Article 14 of the Constitution, would not arise. Such an exercise would be akin to comparing chalk with cheese, i.e., two essentially unequal entities," the bench said.

The bench said that it is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the attack launched against the Highways Act on the strength of the so-called disparity and discrimination in the norms and procedures prescribed therein when compared with the new LA Act.

The court further said that the Highways Act in the State of Tamil Nadu stood protected even at the time the old LA Act was in force and effect, owing to the Presidential assent that it had received under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

The state law continued to operate and provide altogether different yardsticks for acquisition of land and payment of compensation till the advent of the new LA Act, the bench added.

"No doubt, the scheme of the new LA Act advocates timely measures being adopted in implementation of the acquisition and such general temporal restrictions would benefit the land owners, but the absence of such restrictions in the Highways Act may not be reason enough to invalidate it, as the very premise on which the Highways Acts was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu was to cut down on time-consuming processes," the bench pointed out.