Back
1999 Supreme(SC) 1335
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., D.P.Wadhwa : G.T.Nanavati : K.T.Thomas : S.R.Babu, JJ.
Subhash Yadav
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 317 of 1987
Date of Decision : 11/16/99
A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute becomes academic and the petition infructuous if the petitioners are discharged or acquitted in the underlying criminal proceedings, leaving no live issue for the court to determine.
Headnote:(A) Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act - Constitutional validity - Challenge to the validity of the Act becomes academic when the petitioners are discharged or acquitted in the underlying criminal proceedings - In such circumstances, nothing survives for consideration in the writ petitions. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Three writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of a state act. During the pendency of the petitions, one petitioner was discharged by the trial court, another was acquitted, and the third petitioner failed to provide instructions to pursue the matter.
Findings of Court:
Since the petitioners were either discharged or acquitted, or the petition was not pursued, the determination of the constitutional validity of the Act would be of only academic interest.
Issues: Whether the court should decide on the constitutional validity of a statute when the specific grievances of the petitioners have been resolved through discharge or acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: When the underlying criminal cases are resolved by discharge or acquittal, the challenge to the constitutional validity of the statute becomes academic, and the petitions are rendered infructuous.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed as infructuous and for non-prosecution.
(1) IN each one of these three petitions, challenge to the constitutional validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has been made by the petitioners, who were booked under the said Act besides certain other offences under the Indian Penal Code in pursuance of different FIRs registered against them.
(2) A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. upheld the constitutional validity of that Act. A special leave petition, being SLP (C) No. 10766 of 1987 stands dismissed by this Court on 5-5-1997.
(3) WE had started hearing arguments in the writ petitions when the matters remained part-heard. We have now been informed that Subhash Yadav, petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 317 of 1987 was discharged by the trial court as early as on 3-4-1990 while Amar Mani Tripathi, petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 407 of 1987 was acquitted by the trial court on 20-5-1992. Learned counsel for Jitender, petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 562 of 1987 submits that despite numerous attempts made to contact the petitioner and find out about the position of the criminal case against him, there is no response. Learned counsel has, therefore, reported no instructions to pursue the writ petition any further.
(4) IN view of the developments which have taken place by the discharge of petitioner Subhash Yadav and acquittal of petitioner Amar Mani Tripathi and no instructions having been reported on behalf of petitioner Jitender, nothing survives for consideration in these writ petitions, as the exercise to determine the constitutional validity of the Act, would now be only of an academic interest insofar as these cases are concerned. Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 317 and 407 of 1987 are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous while Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 562 of 1987 is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
