Overview The Supreme Court on 10 March 2026 declared the 2015 Bihar legislation that permitted the state to acquire the historic library for a token compensation of **₹1** as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision was “confiscatory” and violated the constitutional guarantee that deprivation of property must be "just, fair and reasonable" under Article 300A . Key Developments Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Patna High Court judgment that had upheld the law. The Act was found arbitrary on two grounds: (a) it dissolved a private trust without any finding of abandonment, mis‑management or failure of purpose; (b) Section 7 limited compensation to a maximum of **₹1**, without any criteria or procedural safeguards. The Court restored the pre‑existing legal position of the trust, reinstating its management and administration. Important Facts Year of Act: 2015 – Bihar Act . Founders of the Library: Sachchidanand Sinha , first temporary President of the Constituent Assembly, and his wife Radhika Sinha . Legal Challenge: Petitioners contested the Act in the Patna High Court; after the High Court upheld it, they appealed to the Supreme Court. Compensation Clause: Section 7 authorised payment "if any" up to **₹1**, without any guiding principles. Constitutional Test Applied: The law must be "just, fair and reasonable"; token compensation was deemed confiscatory and arbitrary. UPSC Relevance This judgment illustrates several core concepts tested in the Civil Services Examination: Interpretation of property rights under the Constitution. Doctrine of arbitrariness and the requirement of a "just, fair and reasonable" law, a recurring theme in constitutional law questions. Understanding of public trust concepts and the limits of state power to dissolve private trusts. Role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights against legislative excesses. Way Forward While the Supreme Court has restored the trust, the episode underscores the need for: Legislatures to frame acquisition laws with clear criteria for compensation, ensuring compliance with Article 300A. Procedural safeguards such as inquiries, audit reports, and stakeholder consultations before dissolving trusts. Continuous judicial vigilance to prevent "confiscatory" statutes that undermine constitutional property rights. For aspirants, the case serves as a benchmark for analyzing the balance between state authority and individual rights, a vital component of GS 2 (Polity) and GS 1 (History) when discussing heritage institutions.