Authorities must consider compensation claims for premises requisitioned for elections under Section 161.

The petitioners, tenants and shopkeepers at Bazaar Samiti, Ara, challenged the requisition of their shops, godowns and terminals for election purposes, including the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the 2025 Bihar Legislative Assembly election.

They alleged that requisition caused business and livelihood losses, that no adequate alternative business premises or compensation was provided, and that the authorities had not properly considered their representations.

The State acknowledged that compensation had not been paid for the 2019 requisition, offered to consider claims under Section 161 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and stated that alternative space had been offered for the 2024 election.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to have their claims for compensation arising from the election-related requisition of their premises considered under Section 161 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Whether the petitioners had a right to alternative business premises during the period of requisition.

Whether Sections 160 and 161 of the Act were constitutionally deficient for not providing compensation for loss of business, fixed investments or other livelihood-related losses.

Sections 160 to 165 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empower requisition of premises for election purposes, while Section 161 provides for compensation, including compensation relating to rent and expenses incidental to a change of premises.

The Court stated that, absent a specific State policy or statutory rehabilitation scheme, there is no constitutional or absolute statutory right to alternative premises for business following requisition; the legal framework instead focuses on monetary compensation.

Relying on Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., 2024 INSC 435, Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, decided 16 May 2024, the Court observed that Article 300A requires fair procedure in compulsory deprivation of property, including notice, hearing, a reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation or restitution, and an efficient process.

The Court found that the petitioners’ business premises had been taken over for the 2019 and 2024 Lok Sabha elections and the 2025 Assembly election, and noted the State’s willingness to process compensation claims under Section 161.

Applying the Article 300A principles in Kolkata Municipal Corporation, it held that the petitioners were entitled to have their compensation claims considered in accordance with law.

It did not determine the amount or scope of compensation, rule on the constitutional challenge to Sections 160 and 161, or grant a substantive right to alternative premises; instead, it directed the District Magistrate to consider a detailed representation.

The District Magistrate was directed to consider it in accordance with law and the Court’s observations, pass a reasoned order, and do so as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months of receiving the representation.