Supreme Court’s Ruling Shatters Journalists

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the allocation of housing plots to journalists has dashed the hopes of the journalist community, reaffirming that they are not entitled to special privileges under the law. The Court’s decision has sparked significant controversy, particularly among journalists who had hoped for government support in the form of subsidized housing plots, a practice that has been part of certain state government schemes.

The issue arose when the United Andhra Pradesh government, during the tenure of the Congress administration, decided to allocate housing plots to several groups, including journalists, public representatives, judges, and bureaucrats. The intention was to provide these groups with access to land in designated areas, ostensibly as a benefit for their service to society. However, the decision quickly faced criticism. Several individuals, including some journalists, filed objections, arguing that it was unfair and discriminatory. Subsequently, the United Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down the government’s decision, declaring the allotment of these plots to be improper and canceling. Despite the High Court’s ruling, some petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the cancellation and seeking to reinstate the allotment of plots, particularly for journalists.

For the journalist community, the Supreme Court's ruling was a major setback. Many had hoped that the government would continue its practice of allocating plots to journalists, viewing it as a recognition of their contributions to society. The ruling, however, quashed those hopes, with the Court's statement that journalists do not occupy a privileged position in society and therefore should not receive such special treatment. The ruling extends beyond just the issue of land allotments to journalists. The Court's decision also challenges the allocation of plots to other groups that were similarly benefitting from such preferential treatment, including public representatives, judges, and bureaucrats. The judgment may pave the way for the reconsideration of similar policies in other states, as it reinforces the principle of equality before the law and questions the rationale behind providing such privileges to any group. Moreover, the Court’s ruling signals that any future government, whether at the state or national level, will likely be discouraged from introducing or maintaining such schemes that offer special housing benefits to journalists or other select groups.