Published on: 28 September 2023 at 10:40 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Assn. of Vasanth Apartments’ Owners V. Gopinath (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has explained Doctrine of Unconstitutional as a condition involves a person having to give-up a Constitutional Right as a condition to obtain a benefit he is otherwise entitled to. It is held that Article 300A of the Constitution of India a person has a Right to Property which cannot be deprived except in accordance with law and such law must be fair and reasonable.
162. The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Condition involves a person having to give-up a Constitutional Right as a condition to obtain a benefit he is otherwise entitled to. While it is in the context of Article 300A, to be understood that the Right to Property cannot be deprived except in accordance with law and even as held in K.T. Plantations (supra) that such law must be fair and reasonable, once it is found that there is such a law, then, even if there is deprivation, it cannot be found that Article 300A is violated. We have already found, in fact, that there is no deprivation in the context of the impugned Rules/Regulations.
In the conspectus of the DCR/Regulation, the nature of the right to property available under the Constitution as expounded in K.T. Plantations (supra), the seemingly never ending imperative needs of an urban metropolis, the indisputable need to set apart 10% for the recreational purpose and the discussion we have already made with regard to the effect of the gift and the purpose it serves, we are of the view that the rule/regulation may not give rise to any room for invoking the doctrine of unconstitutional condition. We must continue to remain alive to the vital dimension which we have already indicated that the impugned provision essentially pertains to what can be described as purely commercial projects though it is linked with property rights.
In other words, particularly from the stand point of invoking the doctrine of unconstitutional condition, the distinction between the person putting up a residential building and the proponent of a complex, commercial project in a metropolis cannot be lost sight of. At any rate, we cannot in the conspectus of the Rule/Regulation and the salutary purpose, it seeks to achieve hold the requirement as an “unreasonable condition in a special sense”.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra