Right on rights

One of the most fraught questions of law framed across the world in broader terms,of justice,of morality is how to balance the rights of people to their property and the requirements of a community. Evident in the framing of that sentence is,indeed,part of the problem: the rights of the individual are typically easier to define clearly in liberal jurisdictions than are the inchoate requirements of a community. Taking on the issue requires considerable clarity of thought which is why it is so often punted down the line,and,especially in poorer countries,the coordination so central to development activity is difficult to achieve. And this is precisely why Thursdays verdict from a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on a case related to land acquisition on the Yamuna Expressway is a landmark moment.

The court said that the scales of justice must tilt towards the right to development of the millions who will be benefited from the road8230; as against the human rights of 35 petitioners herein. This does not mean,of course,that a concrete right to development now exists. But that it has been framed in these terms by the countrys highest court is nevertheless an important step and one that places a focus on development firmly in the mainstream of how Indias judiciary has tackled its responsibility towards issues of governance in this country. The initial few words are themselves memorable,oddly reminiscent of the famous Martin Luther King quote,Barack Obamas favourite,that the arc of the moral universe is long,but it bends towards justice.

For too often the very idea of development has been questioned by some,as if the word contains something toxic,that it is irretrievably tainted by the occasional,unavoidable violence which sometimes happens alongside of it. It is inevitably at the expense of something precious,of someones right,we are frequently told,and thus thinking in terms of development means that you have more contempt for basic rights than do those that are willing to obstruct anything that appears in the slightest bit progressive. Such thinking means we wind up allowing a veto on any sort of project,if we fear any individuals rights have been violated. As the judgment detailed,that would delay the project in such a way that others rights are violated,too. And that urgency and a public purpose allowed the acquisition of land in this manner. In the end,land acquisition is a political problem,and Indias politics must articulate a long-term,progressive solution.