Report No. 46
33. Analogy of Article 31(2).-
Besides, we may point out that, when Article 31(2) was added by section 2 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, Parliament provided that the question about the adequacy of compensation should not be justiciable, but did not make a similar provision about the question as to whether compulsory acquisition or requisition of the property is for a public purpose or not. It would be recalled that, under Article 31(2), no property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of law which provides for compensation.
While excluding the question of compensation and its adequacy from the jurisdiction of courts, Parliament did not think it advisable similarly to exclude the inquiry as to whether the compulsory acquisition or requisition of any property is for a public purpose or not. In our view, just as the existence of the purpose is left open for judicial scrutiny by Article 31(2), so should the nexus between the provisions of the law proposed to be made in pursuance of the authority conferred by Article 31C and their object, viz., the implementation of the principles enumerated in Article 39(b) and (c) be left open to judicial investigation.