印度联邦及其他诉塔塞姆·辛格及其他案

This case is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, delivered on February 4, 2025. It addresses a miscellaneous application filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking clarification on whether the Court's 2019 ruling in *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh* should be applied prospectively or retrospectively. The 2019 judgment had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which had excluded the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby denying landowners solatium and interest for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015. The NHAI argued for prospective application to avoid reopening settled cases and incurring massive financial liability. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the NHAI's plea, reaffirming the retrospective application of the 2019 ruling to ensure fair compensation and uphold constitutional equality.

The Supreme Court rejected the NHAI's plea for prospective application, upholding the retrospective effect of the 2019 ruling. The Court held that limiting the judgment's scope would defeat its purpose of rectifying the inequality caused by Section 3J. It clarified that the judgment does not seek to reopen finalised proceedings but merely ensures that compensation includes solatium and interest where it was previously denied. The Court also dismissed financial burden arguments, stating that economic considerations cannot justify the denial of constitutionally mandated rights. The decision inflicted a significant financial liability on the NHAI, estimated at over ₹100 crore.

The core dispute was whether the benefits of solatium and interest, as established in the 2019 *Tarsem Singh* judgment, should apply retrospectively to all land acquisitions under the National Highways Act from 1997 to 2015, or only prospectively. The NHAI contended that retrospective application would violate the principle of finality and impose an enormous financial burden. The landowners and the Court argued that denying retrospective relief would create an arbitrary and unjust classification among landowners based solely on the date of acquisition, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

This landmark ruling was a major victory for thousands of landowners across India whose properties were acquired for national highway projects. It reinforced the constitutional principles of equality and fairness by ensuring that all affected landowners receive just and fair compensation, regardless of when their land was acquired. The decision also established a strong precedent that financial constraints or administrative burdens cannot be used to undermine fundamental rights or perpetuate discriminatory practices. It was widely seen as a corrective measure that addressed a long-standing legislative anomaly and affirmed the state's responsibility to provide equitable compensation.