Študentom je bilo naročeno, naj proslavljajo NEET Champions.

Students were instructed to celebrate “NEET Champions” following a directive issued by the Supreme Court regarding amendments to the National Highways Act, 1956. During a hearing concerning challenges to certain sections of the Act, the court emphasized the need for judicial oversight in determining compensation for land acquired for national highway projects. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, highlighted that the current system allows bureaucrats rather than judges to resolve such disputes, calling this practice “prima facie not acceptable.” The discussion unfolded during the review of a batch of appeals contesting a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that invalidated Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act. These sections outline the process for calculating compensation and settling disputes via statutory arbitration when landowners object to the amount offered for their land. The core issue before the Supreme Court centers on the perceived inequality between landowners affected by the National Highways Act and those impacted by other land acquisition statutes, such as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Under the latter laws, compensation disputes are resolved through judicial procedures, whereas the National Highways Act mandates that such issues be settled by arbitrators appointed by the Central government, typically bureaucrats like commissioners or district collectors. The Supreme Court raised concerns that this discrepancy violates Article 300A of the Constitution, which safeguards the right to property. The court observed that unlike other land acquisition frameworks, the National Highways Act denies landowners an immediate judicial forum for dispute resolution, potentially undermining due process. In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani stated that the government is actively contemplating legislative modifications to address the issue. He assured the court that any proposed amendment would cover pending cases, though the exact nature of the changes remains unspecified. The bench reiterated its commitment to ensuring that the matter receives urgent attention, either through parliamentary action or judicial intervention. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), contended that the National Highways Act is not singular in its approach, noting that at least 12 other legislations employ similar statutory arbitration mechanisms. He further explained that the Act incorporates elements of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allowing for post-award remedies under arbitration law. Despite these arguments, the bench requested clarification on whether the unilateral appointment of arbitrators under the National Highways Act could withstand scrutiny in light of recent developments in arbitration law. As the legal discourse continues, the focus remains on balancing administrative efficiency with constitutional guarantees of fairness and due process. The court has directed ongoing arbitration proceedings to proceed while awaiting the outcome of the broader legislative debate. This unfolding legal landscape underscores the evolving interplay between statutory frameworks and constitutional rights in the context of land acquisition and dispute resolution.