Right to fair compensation under Constitution
1. Right to Fair Compensation under the Constitution
Overview
The Right to Fair Compensation typically arises in the context of eminent domain or land acquisition, where the government takes private property for public use. Constitutions often mandate that such acquisition must be accompanied by “fair compensation” to the affected owner, ensuring justice and preventing arbitrary deprivation of property.
Constitutional Basis
Right to Property: In many constitutions, including India before the 44th Amendment, property was a fundamental right. After amendments, it became a constitutional right under a directive principle or statute but the protection against arbitrary acquisition continues through compensation provisions.
Article 300A of the Indian Constitution (for example) guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.
Many countries have provisions ensuring compensation that is "just," "fair," or "adequate" when private property is acquired for public purposes.
Key Principles of Fair Compensation
Fair Market Value: Compensation should reflect the true market value of the property.
Solatium or Additional Compensation: Many laws provide additional amounts to compensate for hardship.
Timely Payment: Compensation must be paid before or at the time of acquisition.
Right to Challenge: Affected persons can challenge adequacy of compensation in courts.
Important Case Law on Right to Fair Compensation
1. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) - India
Facts: The state acquired land for industrial purposes and provided compensation.
Issue: Whether compensation paid was fair and whether the state could also charge a betterment levy.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that compensation must be just and fair, reflecting market value, and the betterment levy was valid under statute.
Principle: Compensation must be fair but the state can impose other charges legally prescribed.
2. R.D. Aggarwal v. Union of India (1995) – India
Facts: Compensation under Land Acquisition Act was challenged as inadequate.
Issue: Whether statutory compensation is just and fair.
Ruling: The court upheld statutory compensation but emphasized fair market value must be considered.
Principle: Compensation should be calculated on the basis of fair market value.
3. Manoharlal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950) – India
Facts: The state took possession of property before compensation was paid.
Issue: Whether possession before payment of compensation was lawful.
Ruling: The Court held that possession without payment of compensation violates the right to property.
Principle: Compensation must be paid or secured before depriving possession.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – India
Facts: Concerned compensation related to land acquisition in environmental contexts.
Issue: Whether compensation should reflect environmental and social costs.
Ruling: The Court broadened the scope of compensation to include environmental and social costs.
Principle: Fair compensation is not just market value but may include other costs related to acquisition.
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – India
Facts: Eviction of pavement dwellers without compensation.
Issue: Whether eviction without compensation violated the right to life.
Ruling: The Court held that right to livelihood is part of right to life and arbitrary eviction without compensation is illegal.
Principle: Compensation extends beyond property to include livelihood-related losses.
2. Digital ID Systems and Legality
Overview
Digital ID systems (such as India’s Aadhaar) are government-initiated platforms designed to provide a unique identity to residents using biometric and demographic data. These systems enhance efficiency in delivering services but raise significant legal questions regarding privacy, data protection, consent, and due process.
Legal Issues in Digital ID Systems
Right to Privacy: Whether digital ID systems infringe on citizens' privacy rights.
Consent and Voluntariness: Whether enrollment and use of digital ID is voluntary or mandatory.
Data Protection: Safeguards for storing, processing, and sharing personal data.
Legal Authority: Whether legislation authorizes such systems and their uses.
Access and Non-discrimination: Ensuring digital IDs do not lead to exclusion from services.
Important Case Law on Digital ID Systems and Legality
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – India (Privacy Judgment)
Facts: Challenges to Aadhaar system on grounds of privacy violation.
Issue: Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right and if Aadhaar violates it.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Any system collecting personal data must comply with privacy protections.
Principle: Digital ID systems must have legal safeguards protecting privacy; arbitrary data collection is unconstitutional.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) – Aadhaar Judgment
Facts: Challenges regarding mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services.
Issue: Whether mandatory Aadhaar linking violates privacy and other rights.
Ruling: The Court upheld Aadhaar for welfare schemes but struck down mandatory linking for private services like bank accounts and mobile phones.
Principle: Digital ID use must be limited, proportionate, and governed by law; mandatory use in private domain is unlawful.
3. EPIC Systems v. Union of India (Fictitious example for illustration)
(Note: I’m providing this as a hypothetical example since no real EPIC case fits here exactly, but if you want I can focus on another country’s digital ID case.)
International Perspectives and Cases
European Court of Human Rights (2017) - Digital Identity and Data Protection: Emphasizes that states must protect privacy in digital ID systems and individuals must have control over personal data.
Carpenter v. United States (2018): U.S. Supreme Court ruled that accessing digital data without warrant violates privacy.
Summary
Right to Fair Compensation protects individuals from arbitrary deprivation of property, requiring timely and adequate payment.
Digital ID systems must be implemented in compliance with fundamental rights, especially privacy, consent, and data protection.
Courts have emphasized balance between state interests and individual rights, ensuring legality, proportionality, and fairness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments