BENGALURU: National security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights, the High Court said, upholding the acquisition of land for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) at Benniganahalli in the city.
A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan passed the order while allowing the appeals filed by the DRDO challenging the single judge’s order on April 30, 2015.
“While personal rights are undoubtedly precious, they cannot be asserted in a manner that compromises the safety and security of the nation. The nation must come first, for the protection of the country is the foundation upon which all individual rights and freedoms securely rest”, the court observed.
The court also said that institutions such as the DRDO, through their continuous research, technological innovation and development of advanced defence systems, work tirelessly to safeguard the nation and strengthen its security. In the modern era, when the nation faces increasingly sophisticated threats in the fields of cyber warfare, artificial intelligence and advanced technology, the research and functioning of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) assume vital importance, it added.
The court further said that CAIR’s continued research and technological advancement are essential to strengthening the nation’s defence preparedness, protecting critical systems and safeguarding the sovereignty, security and integrity of the country, the court added.
Before the single judge, the landowners questioned the legality of the acquisition of the lands measuring 1 acre 27 guntas bearing five survey numbers at Benniganahalli village of KR Puram in Bengaluru East taluk, for the defence projects in 2010, on the ground that their objections were not considered by the state government.
Therefore, the single judge quashed the acquisition. These lands were part of certain lands acquired by DRDO in 1988.
The division bench said that quashing the acquisition in its entirety by the single judge has the effect of frustrating a project of national importance, notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition was initiated for a public purpose and that substantial steps had already been taken for implementation of the project. The relief granted by the single judge, therefore, does not appear to be commensurate with the nature of the alleged procedural lapse, the court said.