EMINENT DOMAIN
Bush restricted its operation
Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
Clippings arranged from the ‘edited judgement' depicted on Googleto suggest the remedy against judgeemnt in matter of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd
A case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelop-ment plan. The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”; under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. state and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use.The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.During oral arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy “the distinction between private use and public use,” asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was “not enough to justify use of the condemnation power.” On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens’ majority opinion. In so doing, he contributed to the Court’s trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O’Connor objected to the fact that an unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. As a result, the dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this takings power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” She argued that the decision eliminates “any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively delete[s] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the conse-quence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public’s outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents’ groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting: “Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.” Public reaction to the decision was not favorable. Following Kelo a multitude of states introduced laws restrict-ing the use of eminent domain and the federal government took actions concerning the use of eminent domain. Prior to the Kelo decision, only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight.Opinion polls found that the public overwhelmingly disapproved of the ruling. A Christian Science Monitor online poll found that 93% disagreed with the ruling. Most other polls, depending on the question posed, reacted negatively in the 65% to 97% range. Opposition to the ruling was stated by popular groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party, and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments. The grassroots lobbying group American Conservative Union and The New Media Journal described the decision as judicial activism, as did numerous blogs. On June 27, 2005, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced legislation, the “Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005” (S.B. 1313), to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development. The operative language (1) prohibits the federal government from exercising eminent domain power if the only justifying “public use” is economic development; and (2) imposes the same limit on state and local government exercise of eminent domain power “through the use of Federal funds.” Similar bills have subsequently been put forth in the House of Representatives by Congress-man Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), Tom DeLay (R-TX), and John Conyers (D-MI) with James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). As some small-scale eminent domain condemnations (including notably those in the Kelo case) can be local in both decision and funding, it is unclear how much of an effect the bill would have if it passed into law.On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order [6] instructing the federal government to use eminent domain “...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.” However, eminent domain is often exercised by local and state governments; the order may thus have little overall effectPrior to Kelo only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. 21 of those states enacted laws that severely inhibit the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while 21 others enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development. In November 2007, it was reported that the economic benefits that had been promised by supporters of the Kelo ruling had failed to materialize. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline, and was said to be technically in default ADIVASIS IN TROUBLEDr. Prabodhraj chandol DelhiSupreme Court of India by its judgment in T.N. Godava-raman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Others in the matter of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. has paved the way for forcible displacement of thousands of adivasis for the mining of Bauxite. Most of the inhabitants affected are Dongria Kondhs who are classified as Primitive Tribes. Today, where the UN bodies, all the governments, international and national civil societies including the progressive and democratic organisations world over are worried and deliberating on global warming and the impending ecological disaster and death of the planet, the issue raised by this judgement has become of crucial importance. The Dongria Kondhs who live a harmonious and symbiotic relationship with their environment show the way to mankind on how to lead a sustainable, meaningful and egalitarian life.Present order of the Supreme Court contradicts the 89th Amendment of the Constitution which clearly stipulates that no industry, mines or townships or any other construction activity can be undertaken without the consent of the Gram Sabhas of adivasis residing in the areas demarcated under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. This order will also nullify the implementation of the recently passed Forest Rights Act, under which the adivasis tilling forestland should get the ownership of the land they have been tilling since years.Mining in Niyamgiri area will seriously upset the ecological equilibrium; this area is very rich in bio diversity including rare flora and fauna and many species of rare medicinal herbs. Niyamgiri hills are also the source of important rivers like Nagavali, Vansdhara, which caters to the need of many districts in Orissa including the southern coastal districts. The mining in that area will contravene the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 because it will seriously violate the letter and spirit of the Act. More then five dozens of intellectuals and social workers have jointly issued an appeal to the political parties, the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature to take cognisance of the aspirations of innumerable anti-displacement movements and progressive and democratic organisations in the country and scrap the draconian and colonial land acquisition act of 1894 and call upon the Supreme Court, Government of India and Orissa to reconsider the case of mining in the Niyamgiri Hills and rescind the permission given to Sterlite Industries for mining in Niyamgiri.Appeal has been made by Kamal Mitra Chenoy , School of International Study, JNU; Prof Utsa Patnaik, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Planning ,JNU; Prof Anuradha Chenoy, School of International Studies, JNU; Prof C.P. Chandrasekhar CESP/SSS, JNU; Prof Pralay Kanungo, Centre for Political Studies, JNU; Prof K. R. Nayar , Centre for Social Medicine and Community Health; Thomas kochery. World Forum of Fisher People ,Special Invitee, NAPM,NFF,NCI ; Professor Arun Kumar, Centre for Study of Economic and Social Planning, School of Social Science, JNU; Vijay Pratap, Convenor, Lokayan; Prof. Shyam Sunder Pasrija, General Secretary, Socialist Front, North-West Zone of India; Babulal Sharma, Convenor, Global Gandhi Forum; Rakesh Bhatt, Coordinator, SADED/CSDS; Faisal Khan, Asha Parivar, NAPM, New Delhi ; Anil Thakur, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, New Delhi ; Chandrasekhar Hota, Research Scholar, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Science, JNU; Jeet Bhattacharya, Research Scholar, Film Studies, School of Art and Aesthetics, JNU; Peeyush Pant, Editor, Lok Samvad, New Delhi; Sayantoni Datta, SADED/CSDS; Asit; Social Activist-Researcher, New Delhi; Kumar Sameer, Social Activist, New Delhi ; Shabnam Hashmi , Anhad, New Delhi ; Kavita Krishnan, Editor, Liberation ; Kiran Shaheen, Media and Social activist, New Delhi; Kundan Kumar, Activist, Researcher, Orissa; Felix Padel , Anthropologist, U.K.; Subrat Kumar Sahu, film Maker and Freelance Writer, New Delhi; Mamta Dash, Social activist and researcher, New Delhi ; Prof Manidra Nath Thakur, Centre for Political Studies ,SSS,JNU; Prof Vivek Kumar , Centre for Study of Social System, SSS, JNU ; Prof Rohan D’Souza, Centre for Study of Science Policy, SSS ,JNU; Prof Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine and community health, JNU; Prof Janaki Abraham, Women’s Study Programme, SSS, JNU; Prof Vanitha Damodaran, University of Sussex, Sussex, U.K.; Prof Asha Sarangi, Centre for Political Studies,JNU; Prithpal Singh randhawa, Research Scholar, Instutute of Development Studies Sussex, U.K.; Rona Wilson, Research Scholar and social activist, New Delhi ; Sunil Kumar , Social Activist, New Delhi; G.N. Trivedi, Lecturer, Moti lal Nehru College, Delhi University; Amit, Student, CESP/SSS, JNU ; Sumandro, Research Scholar, JNU; Debolina Biswas, Student, CESP/SSS,JNU; Dhananjay Tripathi, Ex-President, JNU student’s Union; Vibha Iyer , Research Scholar, Centre for economic and social planning, SSS, JNU; Zico Dasguptan, Councilor JNU Student’s Union; P.K. Anand, Research Scholar , CEAS /JNU; Prof Chaman Lal, Centre for Indian language, School of Language, JNU; Agnctra Ghosh , Research Scholar, Film Studies, School of art and Aesthetic, JNU; Rishika Mehrshi, Research Scholar, Film Studies, School of art and Aesthetic, JNU; A.P. kaveendra, Research Scholar, CIL/SL, JNU; Awadesh, Research Scholar, CIL/SL, JNU; Ayush, Social Activist, New Delhi ; Pushkar Raj , PUCL, India; Ashok Aggrwal , Lawyer and social activist, New Delhi ; Ambarish Rai, President Lok sangram Morcha , Gujaratl; Anand Verma, Social Activist, Bhopal; Rita Mishra, Social Activist, New Delhi ; Tapas Ray ,Former Journalist, USA; Subhas Mahapatra, Human Right activist Raipur, Chhatishgarh; Rose Mary viswanath, Equations, Bangalore; Aseem Srivastava, Activists/Researcher, New Delhi; Jaya Iyer, Theatre and social activist , New Delhi ; Aftab Alam, Research Scholar, JNU; Mansi asher, activist researcher, lonavala, Maharastra.
