Against "Eminent Domain"

Our socialist Supreme Court has made a decision in favour of "land acquisition" by The State for "public purpose" - otherwise known as the power of "eminent domain." The case pertained to an expressway project in Uttar Pradesh (UP) to be developed by a private company. But the precedent set has enormous implications, for Property is being fought for by farmers in West Bengal, and by tribals in Orissa as well.

There are two editorials I found on this decision.

First, in the Indian Express - which unabashedly hails this decision, calling it a "landmark moment." The title of this editorial says it all: "Right on Rights." They quote from the judgement:

The court said that “the scales of justice must tilt towards the right to development of the millions who will be benefited from the road... as against the human rights of 35 petitioners herein.”

Curious, ain't it? A socialist court calling Property a "human right"! Who are the biggest violators of all these useless human rights? - The State, and the State Police. Call a spade a spade, judge! Call property, Property!

However, the editors conclude on a strange note:

In the end, land acquisition is a political problem, and India’s politics must articulate a long-term, progressive solution.

Obvious conclusion, that, seeing the huge amount of turmoil looming ahead. Anthony de Jasay's ultra-slim book Before Resorting to Politics is a must read for India's opinion makers.

Let us now turn to the editorial in Mint, titled "Public purpose redefined." The editors say:

Most debates on the development versus land rights issue boil down to one polemical argument: the land and property of tribals and other marginal groups being “snatched”. The court’s judgement is refreshingly apolitical on the issue. So long as proper compensation is paid to the owners and the projects serve more than a small section of the populace, use of eminent domain power is justified.

At the bottom of the page, Mint asks this question:

Can eminent domain power ever be depoliticized in India?

They too conclude that there will be problems - especially, in India, of cronyism - and that these must be "sorted out by the people and the government." They surely see the political dimensions of the problem of insecure Property rights. They see mass uprisings ahead. Living in South Goa, I can say with confidence that the widening of National Highway 17 will never ever happen, because no Property will be given up for the project.

Let us now sit back and understand the importance of Property, why it must be the basis of the Law, and why "eminent domain" is another statist / socialist form of "legal plunder." Since this powerful term was coined by Bastiat, let me begin with his argument.

Bastiat puts it very clearly: Individuals have the right to their Property. Individuals do not have the right to take anyone's Property away by force. Now, individuals combine to make The Law. How can it be that this Law has the power to take Property away by force - a right that no individual possesses? Obviously, something fishy going on here.

Let us now turn to the matter of "proper compensation": First, under no circumstances can this mean "market price." Market prices apply only to properties that have a "For Sale" sign up on them. Where the owners are not willing to sell, the State must pay much more - to make them willing to part with what they own. I think a statutory compensation of three times the current market price should be the rule. Then, there is no "eminent domain"; rather, there is a "windfall gain" for anyone whose Property is being sacrificed for the greater common good - the "public purpose."

In this case, the Supreme Court has defended the "right to development of the millions who will be benefited by the road." Well, in that case, these millions must pay - and pay well. That, in my opinion, would be true Justice.