Stop giving largesse to privileged few, says SC

NEW DELHI The Supreme Court on Monday invalidated the preferential allotment of land to judges, lawmakers, bureaucrats, police officers and journalists in Telangana, ruling that such policies are arbitrary and violative of the constitutional right to equality, and emphasising that state largesse to these “privileged groups” comes at the expense of the marginalised and socially disadvantaged.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and justice Dipankar Datta dismissed the state’s contention that these groups formed a distinct class deserving preferential treatment, describing the policy as an “abuse of power” and ordering the cancellation of several government orders, starting 2005, that enabled such allotments at discounted rates in Hyderabad’s satellite towns.

The bench underscored that such allocations perpetuate inequality and erode public trust in democratic institutions. “The benefits granted to these privileged and well-off classes come at a cost, as they effectively deprive and deny the essentials to the marginalised and socially vulnerable populations,” it held.

It further stated that land—a finite and valuable resource in urban areas—should be distributed equitably and not used to confer undue benefits on elite sections. “This preferential treatment conveys the message that certain individuals are entitled to more, not due to the necessities of their public office or the public good, but simply because of their status. Such practices foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens,” the court noted.

Drawing a clear line on the misuse of public assets, the judgment held: “Government servants, elected legislators, judges in the Supreme Court and high court, and prominent journalists do not belong to the ‘weaker’ or per se deserving sections of our society, warranting special State reservations in land allotment.”

The judgment sets a precedent against the arbitrary distribution of state resources while serving as a stern reminder to governments to exercise their powers responsibly and equitably so as to prioritise the welfare of the underprivileged over the entitlements of the elite.

A challenge to the alienation of property granted to several cooperative societies, primarily consisting of MLAs, MPs, officers from the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Revenue Service, and other powerful individuals, was filed in the Andhra Pradesh high court in 2008. In 2010, a number of government decisions that distributed residential plots to these individuals in housing societies were overturned by the high court, which further allowed the state to make fresh allotments based on certain standards. The state, along with various cooperative societies, moved the Supreme Court in appeal, arguing that the categories of people identified under the government orders constituted distinguished classes due to their commitment towards societal welfare and public services.

Rejecting such contentions, the apex court ruled that such preferential treatment to already privileged classes violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The court emphasized that state largesse should prioritize the socio-economically disadvantaged rather than those in positions of influence and authority.

The court bemoaned the policy, which allotted land at discounted rates, as a betrayal of the State’s constitutional obligations. “The State holds all its resources in trust for its citizens, to be utilised in the larger public and social interest,” said the bench, adding that resources like land, particularly in urban areas, must serve the needs of the many rather than the few.

The bench underlined how such preferential policies erode trust in democratic institutions, particularly when they disproportionately benefit the elite. “Such practices foster resentment and disillusionment among ordinary citizens, who perceive these actions as corrupt or unjust, thereby eroding trust in democratic institutions.”

From an economic perspective, the court highlighted the distortion of market forces when public land is undervalued. “When land is offered at a discounted rate, it distorts the natural market forces that govern the value of land. The true market price of land reflects its demand and utility, but when individuals receive land at a discount, it artificially devalues the property and consequently diminishes public revenue,” said the judgment, pointing to the financial strain on the exchequer.

Applying the principles of substantive equality to underscore the arbitrariness of Telangana’s policy, it held: “The classification giving State largesse to judges of Constitutional Courts, MPs, MLAs, officers of the All India Services, journalists, etc., favours a privileged segment of society, which is already better off compared to the vast majority of marginalized and socio-economically disadvantaged individuals.”

It said that individuals representing the four pillars of the democracy – legislators, bureaucrats, judges and journalists are expected to act as checks and balances on the arbitrary exercise of the State’s power. “However, the distribution of such extraordinary State benefits renders nugatory the very optics of healthy checks and balances within our democratic system,” it said.

The bench further held that such policies perpetuate systemic inequities. “The policy differentiates and bestows largesse to an advantaged section/group by resorting to discrimination and denial. It bars the more deserving, as well as those similarly situated, from access to the land at the same price. It promotes socio-economic exclusion, to favour a small and privileged section/group,” it noted.

“Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, MPs, MLAs, officers of the AIS, journalists, etc, cannot be treated as a separate category for allotment of land at a discounted basic value in preference to others,” declared the court, reiterating that these groups already enjoy significant privileges.

Invalidating the policy, the bench ordered the cancellation of all lease deeds under the scheme and directed the Telangana government to refund all amounts paid by beneficiaries, including stamp duties and development charges, with interest.

“The allocation of land at basic rates to select privileged groups reflects a capricious and irrational approach. This is a classic case of executive action steeped in arbitrariness, but clothed in the guise of legitimacy, by stating that the ostensible purpose of the policy was to allot land to ‘deserving sections of society’. Shorn of pretence, this policy of the state government, is an abuse of power meant to cater exclusively to the affluent sections of the society, disapproving and rejecting the equal right to allotment of the common citizen and the socio-economically disadvantaged,” it held.

The court clarified that while the state retains discretion to allocate resources, such discretion must meet constitutional benchmarks of fairness and equality. “The State cannot exercise discretion to benefit a select few elites disproportionately, especially ones who are already enjoying pre-existing benefits and advantages,” observed the bench, adding that the Telangana government will now deal with the land in the light of this verdict.

Notably, the political parties in Telangana did not react to the development till the filing of this report.