The State or its instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday and quashed the decision of the Madhya Pradesh government in 2004 to allot 30 acres to a trust named after the late BJP leader, Kushabhau Thakre.
A Bench, comprising Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, while setting aside the land allotment notification issued by the erstwhile Uma Bharti government, directed the State to take possession of the land and refund the money collected from the trust, which has senior BJP leaders L. K. Advani, M. Venkaiah Naidu and Murli Manohar Joshi as trustees.
Writing the judgment, Justice Singhvi said: “Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory or non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefitted by the policy.”
Distribution of largesse such as allotment of land and grant of quota, permit licence, etc., by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism should not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State.
The Bench said: “Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.
“The allotment of land by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities to a body/organisation/institution, which carry the tag of caste, community or religion is not only contrary to the idea of Secular Democratic Republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the society on caste or communal lines. The allotment of land to such bodies/organisations/institutions on political considerations or by way of favouritism or nepotism or with a view to nurturing the vote bank for future is constitutionally impermissible.”
