SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, MM. PUNCHHI, K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWAL, R.M. SAHAI, JJ.)
KARTAR SINGH
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
KRIPA SHANKAR RAI
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Writ Petition No. 1833 of 1984 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 194 of 1989, decided on March 11, 1994
Writ Petition No. 1833 of 1984{Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 5 of 1985, 407 and 317 of 1987, 358 of 1986, 1427 of 1981. 15432 of 1984, 194 of 1989, 144 of 1992, 697 of 1986, 123 of 1991, 562 of 1987. 1175 of 1991, 167-73, 131-35 of 1992, 7619, 1682 of 1981; Criminal Appeal Nos. 547 of 1985, 314 of 1986, 90 of 1991, 753, 266, 481 of 1985, 537 of 1989, 447 of 1985, 552, 502 of 1989, 364 of 1985, 139 of 1992, 579 of 1985, 279 of 1986, 645 of 1991, 717 of 1985, 556 of 1984, 595 of 1991, 676 of 1989, 541 of 1991, 466, 262, 720 of 1985, 172 of 1992, 76-77 of 1988, 630 of 1987 (with 530 of 1987) and SLP (Civil) No. 10766 of 1987}
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 194 of 1989{W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 5883 of 1980, 555-61, 532, 76619 of 1982, 1682 of 1981, 1005 of 1984, 76 and 77 of 1982, 1109-10, 551 of 1985, 1241 of 1982, 2502, 6815 of 1981, 616 of 1982, 117. of 1986, 717-19, 549, 550 of 1985, 1034-35, 12, 13 of 1982, 1427 of 1981, 1008 of 1985, 1658-80 of 1981, 548-50, 507, 67 of 1989, 232 of 1990, 331 of 1988, 500 of 1992 and 539-41 of 1987}
Constitution of India,1950 – Articles 250 , 252 , 245 , 246, 248 , 21 , 359(1) , 20 ,21, 233, 234 ,235 , 143(1) , 139-A and 20(3) - Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act of 1973 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Criminal Law Act of 1973 - Section 62 - Ireland Emergency Provisions Act, 1978 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 - Sections 4 and 5 - Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 - Golden Temple case - Overt phase of terrorism - Criminal appeals and SLPs are filed challenging vires of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 - Commonly known as TADA Acts - Challenging constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1976 by which Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh has deleted Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh - Number of other matters falling under various Acts such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Held, Provisions relating to appointment of a person as Designated Court are clear yet in written arguments it was pointed out that some of appointed even after retirement - Appeal suggested it may be examined by the appropriate authority if a proviso could be added to Section 19 convictions are for offences other Sections 3 and 4 of Act 28 of 1987 the accused may be entitled to file an appeal in High Court itself and in case an appeal against conviction is filed by the Government in Court appeal filed by accused in High Court should stand automatically transferred - Court opinion in such cases accused should be provided a counsel of his choice and the payment of fee should be either made by State or if made by accused it should be reimbursed - Court to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution High Courts being constitutionally obliged to ensure are entitled to entertain petition to determine if proceedings were not an abuse of process of court - But while exercising discretion court must not be oblivious of sensitivity of legislation and social objective inherent in it and, therefore, should exercise it for sake of justice in rare and exceptional cases the details of cannot be fixed by any rigid formula – Ordered Accordingly
The provided legal document primarily addresses the constitutionality, legislative competence, and procedural safeguards related to anti-terrorism laws, with a focus on ensuring that measures taken for national security do not violate fundamental rights such as personal liberty, equality, and fair trial. It emphasizes that laws enacted under the Constitution must be just, fair, and reasonable, and that any procedural deviations that infringe upon these rights are invalid. The document underscores the importance of maintaining judicial independence, ensuring fair procedures, and safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary or oppressive state actions, especially in the context of emergency legislation aimed at combating terrorism. It advocates that legislative measures must be consistent with constitutional principles, and that any restrictions on personal liberty or procedural rights require strict adherence to fairness and justice, with appropriate safeguards to prevent misuse or abuse of power.
JUDGMENT
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. (on behalf of himself, Punchhi, J., K. Ramaswamy, J., Agrawal, J. and Sahai, J.{Ed.: For clarification see Editors Introductory Note at the beginning of the headnote.}- The above batch of matters consisting of a number of writ petitions, criminal appeals and SLPs are filed challenging the vires of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act (No. 61 of 1984), the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (No. 31 of 1985) and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (No. 28 of 1987) - commonly known as TADA Acts - (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984, Act of 1985 and Act of 1987 respectively) and challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976) by which the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh has deleted Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though originally, a number of other matters falling under various Acts such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act 7 of 1986), the Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and some provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), were listed for hearing, we have fully and conclusively heard only the matters pertaining to the Act of 1984, Act of 1985 and Act of 1987 and U.P. Act 16 of 1976.
2. Therefore, we are now rendering a common judgment pertaining to the vires of these three Acts and Section 9 of U.P. Act 16 of 1976. At the same time, we make it clear that the merits of the individual cases will have to be decided separately after the validity of these three Acts is decided.
3. Before going to the question of the validity of these three Acts, we feel that a factual and archival account and exposition of the three relevant Acts may be summarised.
Prefatory Note of the Three Acts
(A) THE TERRORIST AFFECTED AREAS (SPECIAL COURTS) ACT, 1984 (ACT 61 OF 1984)
4. The above Act 61 of 1984, applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir received the assent of the President on August 31, 1984 replacing Ordinance No. 9 of 1984 promulgated on July 14, 1984, the object of which is to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences in terrorist affected areas and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(1) of this Act defines the expression "terrorist affected area" as an area declared as a "terrorist affected area" under Section 3 which provision empowers the Central Government by notification to declare any area to be "terrorist affected area" and constitute such area into a single judicial zone or into as many judicial zones as it may deem fit provided in its opinion the offences of the nature specified in the Schedule appended to that Act are being committed in any area by terrorists on such a scale and in such a manner that it is expedient for the purpose of coping with such terrorists to have recourse to the provisions of the Act. The notification issued under Section 3(1) in respect of an area should specify the period during which the area shall for the purpose of this Act be a "terrorist affected area". As per Section 3(2) a notification under Section 3(1) in respect of an area specifying the period during which the area shall for the purpose of this Act, be a terrorist affected area, and where the Central Government is of the opinion that the terrorists had been committing in that area from the date earlier than the date of issue of the notification, offences of the nature specified in the Schedule on such a scale and in such a manner that it is expedient to commence the period specified in the notification from such earlier date, the period specified in the notification may commence from that date subject to the proviso thereto.
5. This Act contains 21 sections relating to the establishment of spe
Y.S. Parmar (Dr) v. Hira Singh Paul
State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of JandK
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
relied on : Gurbachan Singh v. State of Bombay
Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College
referred to : Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College
referred to : Syed Qasim Ram v. State of Hyderabad
V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb
Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India
Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
distinguished : Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
relied on : U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla
affirmed : Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat
referred to : Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor
relied on : State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe
affirmed : State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed
referred to : Waryam Singh v. Amamath
State of Gujarat v. Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela
Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand
Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N. Bhatena
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lat
distinguished : Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat
relied on : State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State ofGujarat
referred to : Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal
State of Gujarat v. Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela
relied on : Santoshi Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Deputy C.S.T.
Tilokchand and Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, C.S.T.
Jagdish Prasad v. State of W.B.
Collector of Customs v. Chetty Nathela Sampathu
NiranjanSingh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat
referred to : State of W.B. v. AnwarAli Sarkar
distinguished : Special Courts Bill, 1978. In re
referred to : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar
Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A.P.
referred to : A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
State of orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Satya Vir Singh v. Union of India
relied on : State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
referred to : N.B. Khare (Dr) v. State of Delhi
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B.
State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala
Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India
Talib Haji Hussain v. Madhukar P. Mondkar
Kangsari Haldar v. State of W.B.
explained and distinguished : State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
BalkishanA. Devidayal v. State ofMaharashtra
Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of W.B.
Poolpandi v. Superintendent, central Excise
Directorate of Enforcement v, Deepak Mahajan
referred to : M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi
Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry
Hari Charan Kurmi andJogia Hajam v. State of Bihar
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhari v. Union of India
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi
Raja Narayanlal Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry
State of W.B. v. AnwarAli Sarkar
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1)
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla
followed : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
relied on : Hussainara Khatoon (1 v. Home secretary, State of Bihar
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration(1)
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home secretary, State ofBihar, Patna
Hussainara Khatoon (VI) v. Home secretary, State ofBihar, Govt. ofBihar, Patna
Kadra Pahadia v. State of Bihar (II)
T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N.
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1
Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.
Stale of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
referred to : Tahsildar Singh v. State ofU.P.
relied on : State of JandK.v. M.S. Farooqi
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon
relied : Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India
relied on : Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P.
India Cement Ltd. v. State of T.N.
South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S. Samp Singh
S. Narayanaswami v. G. Panneerselvarn
Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan
Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwal v. secretary, Municipal Committee
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co.
Superintendent, central Prison v. Dr Ram ManoharLohia
Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr) v. State of Bihar
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P.
relied on : Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India
Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr) v. State of Bihar
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
Ravata Hariprasada Rao v. State
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.