Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Indeed, the tryst with destiny that India made when it became free found expression in a historic speech by the then Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru:

The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over. We must notice the Indian human condition. "Indian poverty, to many who have an acquaintance with poverty in similar societies is unique", writes Segal in his book The Crisis of India: "It is unique in its depths, which seems incapable of supporting life at all; unique in its blatancy, for it is everywhere, in city and village, and concealed among chimneys or trees, not isolated like an epidemic in an inaccessible slum, but everywhere, on the movement of one's feet, always some where in the circle of one's sight; unique in its sheer magnitude for in India the poor are not to be numbered in hundreds of thousands, but in hundreds of millions; unique in the quality of its submission, which registers a kind of glazed pride." In this context we may also read what Rajen Babu stated as a framer of the Constitution:

To all we give the assurance that it will be our endeavour to end poverty and squalor and its companions hunger and disease, to a abolish distinctions and exploitation and to ensure decent conditions of living. We may have to remember that a galaxy of Constitution-makers like Sardar Patel and B. Pant and Rajagopalachari, not to speak of Jawahar Lal Nehru, where doubtful about the court being given the power to pronounce upon the question of compensation when the State acquired property. Indeed, it is revealing to read the debates in condensed form given by Granville Austin:

'If the word 'just' is kept,' he said, 'we come to the conclusion that every case will go to the Federal Court.' Therefore "just" is dropped ........The Assembly greeted the committee's actions favourably. We need not go into the details except to state that even Gandhiji took the view that anything like compensation could possibly not be given when property was taken from the property owners by the State for community benefit. I mention this only to drive home the point that right to property is not part of the basic structure of the Constitution even as right to poverty is not the basic structure of India for ever. The whole adventure of the Constitution is to remove poverty and in that process remove concentration of property, not for a return, but for almost free, if the justice of the situation commended it self to the legislation to take it that way. Of course, it may be a deception to say that an "amount" is paid if nothing is paid except a tittle. So what we have to consider is whether the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs is so utterly deceptive and totally nominal as to be discarded as a farthing with contempt. Having regard to the human condition of a large percentage of pavement dwellers and slum dewllers in our urban areas and proletarian miserables in our rural vastnesses, any one who gets Rs. 2 lakhs can well be regarded as having got something substantial to go by. In a society where half of humanity lives below the breadline, to regard Rs. 2 lakhs as a farthing is farewell to poignant facts and difficult to accept. In my view, with the greatest respect for my learned brother, I am unable to assent to the view that s. 11 (6) contravenes Art. 31 (2) because the Payment stipulated is a mere mockery.

The power of judicial review to stricke at excess or mala fides is always there for vigilant exercise untrammeled by the narrow precedents of Victorian vintage. Prof. H.W.R. Wade's note of judicial activism, in his recent Hamlyn Lectures, will set the sights right:

Brainwashed though British lawyers are in their professional infancy by the dogma of legislative sovereignty, they ought to excuse rather than criticise the logical contortions and evasions to which Judges must resort in their struggle to preserve their powers. I do not see how they can fairly be accused, to borrow words used by Lord Devlin, of moving too far from their base. They would be much more open to criticism if they remained content with the wretchedly narrow base to which they confined themselves 30 years ago, when they took clauses of the "if the minister is satisfied" type at face value. For judicial control, particularly over discretionary power, is a constitutional fundamental. In their self-defensive campaign the judges have almost given us a constitution, establishing a kind of entrenched provision to the effect that even Parliament cannot deprive them of their proper function. They may be discovering a deeper constitutional logic than the crude absolute of statutory omnipotence. I have no doubt even the crude drafting of s. 23 (4) by the unwanted 'subject to' will not whittle down the power, why the obligation, to distribute vacant land, not according to personal, political or official fancy but strictly geared to the good set down in Art. 39 (b) and (c) The question of basic structure being breached cannot arise when we examine vires of an ordinary legislation as distinguished from a constitutional amendment. Kesavananda Bharati cannot be the last refuge of the proprietariat when being legislation takes away their 'excess' for societal weal. Nor, indeed, can every breach of equality spell disaster as a lethal violation of the basic structure. Peripheral inequality is inevitable when large-scale equalisation processes are but into action. If all the judges of the Supreme Court in solemn session sit and deliberate for half a year to produce a legislation for reducing glaring economic inequality their genius will let them down if the essay is to avoid even peripheral inequalities Every large cause claims some martyr, as sociologists will know. Therefore, what is a betrayal of the basic feature is not a mere violation if Art. 14 but a shocking, unconscienable or unscrupulous travesty of the quintessence of equal justice. If a legislation does go that far it shakes the democratic foundation and must suffer the death penalty. But to permit the Bharati ghost to haunt the corridors of the court brandishing fatal writs for every feature of inequality is judicial paralysation of parliamentary function. Nor can the constitutional fascination for the basic structure doctrine be made a Trojen horse to penetrated he entire legislative camp fighting for a new social order and to overpower the battle for abolition of basic poverty by the 'basic structure' missile. Which is more basic? Eradication of die-hard, deadly and pervasive penury degrading all human rights or upholding of the legal luxury of perfect symmetry and absolute equality attractively presented to preserve the status quo ante? To use the Constitution to defeat the Constitution cannot find favour whit the judiciary I have no doubt that the strategy of using the missile of 'equality' to preserve die-hard, dreadful societal inequality is a stratagem which must be given short shrift by this court. The imperatives of equality and development are impatient for implementation and judicial scapegoats must never be offered so that those responsible for stalling economic transformation with a social justice slant may be identified and exposed of. Part IV is a basic goal of the nation and now that the court upholds the urban ceiling law, a social audit of the Executive's implementation a year or two later will bring to light the gaping gap between verbal valour of the statute book and the executive slumber of law-in-action. The court is not the anti-hero in the tragedy of land reform urban and agrarian.