Supreme Court Issues Notice on Eviction of SC Families for Madurai Airport Expansion

Overview The Supreme Court on 19 May 2026 issued a notice in response to a petition filed by residents of Chinna Udaippu village, who belong to the Scheduled Caste . The petition challenges the eviction ordered by the Tamil Nadu government to clear land for the extension of Madurai International Airport . The petitioners claim that the eviction violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 and Article 300A . Key Developments 19 May 2026 – A two‑judge bench (Justice MM Sundresh & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) issued a notice to the Tamil Nadu government. The petitioners seek a built house, two acres of agricultural land and a rehabilitation package as mandated by the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws, 2019 . Earlier, on 27 February 2026, the Madurai bench (Justice G Jayachandran & Justice K K Ramakrishnan) gave families two weeks to vacate, holding that the acquisition in 2009 fell outside the 2013 Act’s purview. The state government asserts that it has already paid compensation, provided ex‑gratia amounts, and offered a 2‑cent house site plus a built house under a special scheme. Important Facts • More than 300 families (over 1,000 individuals) are affected. • The land was originally acquired in 2009 for airport expansion. • The petitioners argue that statutory safeguards under the 2013 Act and the 2019 State Act were not observed. • The case is listed as P. Malairajn & Ors v. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors (SLP(C) No. 10335/2026) . UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the intersection of constitutional law, land‑acquisition policy and minority rights – core topics for GS 2 (Polity) . It underscores the importance of: Understanding the procedural safeguards in the RFCTLARR Act and related state legislation. Applying fundamental rights, especially Article 21 and Article 300A , in land‑acquisition disputes. Recognising the special protections afforded to Scheduled Caste groups under the Constitution. Way Forward • The Supreme Court will examine whether the 2009 acquisition can be retrospectively governed by the 2013 Act. • If the Court finds a violation of constitutional rights, it may order additional compensation, proper rehabilitation and possibly a stay on the airport expansion until compliance. • The state should proactively align its acquisition process with both central and state statutes to avoid litigation and ensure equitable treatment of vulnerable communities.