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.
Exam 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.