The Singur sham

Mamata pushed the bill through with no heed to Constitution or legal precedent

The basic facts are well known by now. West Bengal's Left Front invited the Tatas to set up a Nano plant in 2006. About 997 acres of mostly agricultural land was acquired. Some farmers sold willingly, others resented it — violence followed. The Tatas signed a lease, moved in and invested considerably. But low-intensity violence continued. With the government unable to guarantee law and order, the Tatas pulled out in 2008. One of Mamata Banerjee's earliest legislative achievements was the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 — a law under which the leased land was taken over and provisions were made for returning some of it to the resentful sellers. But her plans hit a roadblock when the Calcutta High Court declared the law unconstitutional.

At the heart of the controversy was the very nature of the action itself. In 2006, the government gave the acquired land to the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation, which in turn leased it to the Tatas for 90 years. By taking over the leased land, the Singur Act, the Tatas' counsel argued, had made an "acquisition". That is to say the law acquired the Tatas' property. The Bengal government saw it differently. To them, the effect of the law was to merely end the lease and take "repossession" of land that already belonged to the government. Depending on the nature of the action, different constitutional rules would apply. The high court found that leasehold is also a kind of property and, therefore, in cancelling the lease, the act had in effect acquired property.

A Central law on acquisition of property, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, already exists. Under Article 254 of the Constitution, if a state legislature makes a law that is inconsistent with the Central law, the president's assent is needed. The high court found that there were "clear and direct inconsistencies" between the Singur Act and the Central law. Rules regarding the purpose and procedure of acquisition, possession and compensation were irreconcilably different. But the president's assent hadn't been taken; Governor M. K. Narayanan had signed it into law himself. The high court found the Singur Act to be in violation of Article 254.

... contd.

ALSO READ

Read between the LAC

Socially networked election

Phantom democracy

Some chit chat