National security trumps personal rights: Karnataka High Court upholds land acquisition for DRDO

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the interests of national security must take precedence over personal rights, while restoring the acquistion of land for a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) AI/ robotics centre [Defence Research and Development Organisation v. Special Land Acquisition Officer].

A Division Bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan on September 21 set aside a 2014 single-judge Bench ruling that had earlier quashed the land acquisition proceedings.

The single-judge had reasoned that objections raised by the original landowners had not been properly considered by the relevant authorities during the land acquisition proceedings.

The DRDO and the Union government had challenged this ruling by way of appeals, which have now been allowed by the High Court's Division Bench.

The Division Bench found that the original landowners’ objections had, in fact, been properly considered and that they failed to show any real prejudice.

Notably, the Court also highlighted that the acquired land would be used for research into defence measures. In such matters, national interest takes precedence over personal rights, it said.

"National security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. While personal rights are undoubtedly precious, they cannot be asserted in a manner that compromises the safety and security of the nation. The nation must come first, for the protection of the country is the foundation upon which all individual rights and freedoms securely rest," the ruling stated.

The Court further underscored that institutions such as the DRDO work tirelessly to safeguard the nation and strengthen its security, through research, innovation and the development of advanced defence systems.

"In the modern era, when the nation faces increasingly sophisticated threats in the fields of cyber warfare, artificial intelligence and advanced technology, the research and functioning of the (DRDO) Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (‘CAIR’) assume vital importance. Its continued research and technological advancement are essential to strengthening the nation’s defence preparedness, protecting critical systems and safeguarding the sovereignty, security and integrity of the country," it added.

The dispute arose from the acquisition of land in Benniganahalli village, KR Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East, for DRDO's defence research laboratory, Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR). The land acquisition which began in 1987 has a checkered history.

The petitions before the High Court challenged a September 2010 declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which had cleared the way for DRDO to acquire the petitioners’ land for its CAIR project. The petitioners argued that their objections under Section 5-A had not been properly considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and that the availability of alternative sites had not been examined. 

A single judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court found merit in the argument that the petitioners' objections were not examined properly, and quashed the land acquisition altogether.

The DRDO and the Central government challenged this ruling, arguing that the single-judge Bench was wrong to quash the entire land acquisition proceedings.

Among other submissions, the DRDO submitted the disputed land was adjacent to already acquired land, where work towards the project had begun. It also maintained that objections made by the original landowners had been properly considered and rejected.

The Division Bench found that the relevant authorities had in fact examined the landowners' objections and decided on them.

"The mere absence of a detailed discussion of each and every submission cannot, in the facts of the present case, be treated as sufficient to invalidate the entire acquisition proceedings," it said.

The Court further rejected the argument that there are alternative lands where the DRDO centre could be set up. It held that a Court cannot second-guess the government's choice of land for a defence project, unless such a decision is shown to be malafide or arbitrary.

"The choice of land for a public project is primarily an administrative and technical decision, and judicial review is warranted only where the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, wholly irrelevant or vitiated by a clear breach of the statutory procedure," it said.

The Division Bench also opined that the single-judge had erred in setting aside the entire land acquisition proceeding over procedural lapses in this case.

"Quashing the acquisition in its entirety has the effect of frustrating a project of national importance, notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition was initiated for a public purpose and that substantial steps had already been taken for implementation of the project. The relief granted by the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not appear to be commensurate with the nature of the alleged procedural lapse," it said.

The Court went on to remark that the private rights of landowners have to be harmonised with larger public interests.

"We are conscious that the rights of private landowners cannot be disregarded merely because the acquisition is for a public purpose. At the same time, the rights of the landowners have to be harmonised with the larger constitutional obligation of the State to protect the nation and to provide the infrastructure necessary for national defence and security," it observed.

It also commented on the public importance of the DRDO proposed to be set up at Benniganahalli, stating,

"In the present era, where threats to national security are increasingly influenced by technology, automation, artificial intelligence, robotics and sophisticated systems, institutions such as CAIR assume vital importance."

The Court proceeded to restore the land acquisition that was quashed by the single judge Bench, while clarifying that the rights of the landowners in respect of compensation for the land acquisition remain protected.

Additional Solicitor General, Senior Advocate Aravind Kamath and Central Government Counsel Jayakara Shetty appeared for the DRDO, and the Union of India.

Additional Government Advocate N Byre Gowda appeared for the SLAO and State.

Senior Advocates MS Bhagwat, Udaya Holla, along with Advocates Venkatramareddy, and CM Nagabhushana, appeared for the land owners.

[Read Judgment]