SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 224

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.)
RAM NARAYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Writ Petition No. 5883 of 1980, decided on March 31, 1981

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19, 14 and 21 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 9 and 438 - Interpretation and application of various articles of Constitution - Challenged on ground that this section is violative of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India - Held, perhaps it may be reasonably argued that State (U. P.) legislature was competent to pass this legislation as it has received assent of President under Article 254(2) and impugned Act would prevail in State of U. P. question, however, remains whether or not impugned Act could stand scrutiny of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution - Therefore, direct that this case be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for being heard by a larger Bench, if not the Constitution Bench – Direction issued – Order accordingly.

Judgment

Fazal Ali, J.-In this petition the vires of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U. P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act 16 of 1976) has been challenged on the ground that this section is violative of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The point involved is a very substantial question of law as to the interpretation and application of various articles of the Constitution and would have far-reaching consequences, not only, in the State of U. P. but in other States, if they choose to follow suit and adopt the stand taken by the U. P. legislature. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced by the Parliament as being applicable to the entire country. Perhaps it may be reasonably argued that the State (U. P.) legislature was competent to pass this legislation as it has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) and the impugned Act would prevail in the State of U. P. The question, however, remains whether or not the impugned Act could stand the scrutiny of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. We, therefore, direct that this case be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for being heard by a larger Bench, if not the Constitution Bench. Liberty to mention.

For Citation : (1981) 2 SCC 757

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top