Important point
A law vesting discretion in an authority under such circumstances cannot be discretionary and is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(i) Special Leave Petition-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -Section 3-Power of Govt. to appoint Special Judges for area or areas or group of cases-Word ‘or’ used in Section 3 of the Act-Mean that Govt. has power to do either or both things-Word ‘or’ conjunction-Normally used for joining alternatives-At times to mean ‘and’ also-Not proper to ascribe to it meaning not consistent with context of Section 3. (Para 8)
       (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 3(1)-Validity of-Appointment of Special Judges for such case or group of cases-Power of Govt. challenged as unfettered-Unguided and absolute discretion-Section 3 indicate when and under what circumstances power under Section 3 to be exercised-No fixed rule or guidance in that behalf could have been laid down by legislature-Discretion conferred not absolute-Statutory obligation or duty-Requirement would necessitate exercise of power by Govt.-In context of public interest that meaning of word ‘necessary’ appearing in Section 3 to be construed-Exercise of discretion by Govt. under Section 3 to be guided by requirement of public interest - Discretion conferred not unguided -Section 3(1) valid. (Paras 9 to 17)
       (iii) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 3(1)-Establishment of three more Courts of Additional Session Judges-Notification dated 30th April, 1997-Appointment as Special Judges for trying cases-Approval by High Court-Proposal examined by Committee of Judges-Full Court approved same-Allocation or distribution of those cases amongst those special Judges by Acting Chief Justice-Administrative act-Even if considered irregularity not of such magnitude as would invalidate that part of notification whereby cases allocated. (Paras 20 and 21)
       (iv) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 4(2)-Validity of notification dated 5th February, 1999 - Jurisdiction of Special Judges-Power of allocation-Trial of cases specified in State notification going on since May, 1977-Notification dated 5th February, 1999 issued by Central Government under Section 4(2) specifying some Special Judges in Chennai to be Judges to try offences specified in Section 3(1)-Failure to establish necessity of issuing impugned notification dated 5th February, 1999 by Central Government-Uncalled for at that stage-To be regarded as bad. (Paras 22 to 24)

Judgment

G.T. Nanavati, J.-Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of writ petitions filed by Ms. Jayalalitha - former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, her cabinet colleagues, some MLAs of the AIADMK Party and some officers of the Government, challenging the validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in so far as it empowers the State Government to appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary “for such case or group of cases” as may be specified in the notification and also the notification dated 30.4.1997, whereby three additional Courts of City Civil and Sessions Judges, Chennai were established and the Judges of those Courts were appointed as Special Judges to try exclusively on day-to-day basis the criminal cases filed against those writ petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court by two separate judgments of the two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench, dismissed the writ petitions, by holding that Section 3 in so far as it empowers the Government to appoint special Judge “for such case or group of cases” is constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It also held that the establishment of three additional Sessions Courts at Chennai and appointment of Judges of those Courts as Special Judges by the notification dated 30.4.1997 is also valid and that in no way contravenes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution nor does that stand vitiated by mala fides either factual or legal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellants (except the appellant in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2805 of 1998) have filed these appeals. Subsequent to the filing of the SLPs, out of which these appeals arise, the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 issued a notification on 5.2.1999 appointing the XIth, XIIth and XIIIth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges, Chennai as Special Judges for trial of offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act and investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) and committed within the area comprised in the Chennai Sessions Division. By another notification of the same dated issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, the Central Government specified some Special Judges in the city of Chennai to be the Judges who shall try the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3. This notification was issued by the Central Government as it was of the view that where there are more Special Judges than one for any area it is the exclusive power of the Central Government to specify which cases shall be tried by which Special Judge of that area and, therefore, it was not proper and legal for the State Government to make allotment of cases amongst those three Special Judges by the said notification dated 30.4.1997. The appellants were happy with the said notification and, therefore, obviously did not challenge the same. However, feeling aggrieved by the said notification, the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and one Mr. M.A. Chinnaswamy - an Advocate practising in this Court - have filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the said notification. One organisation known as VOICE (Consumer Care Council), a voluntary consumer organisation, which had in the past taken up various public causes by way of public interest litigation, filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Madras challenging the said notification. The High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that “the matter relating to the establishment of the special Courts under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act by notification by the State Government and ancillary issues are now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, it is not desirab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 667

Important pointA law vesting discretion in an autho­rity under such circumstances cannot be discretionary and is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitu­tion.

Cases Referred (13)

Important point
A law vesting discretion in an authority under such circumstances cannot be discretionary and is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.