Back
Supreme Court of India
H.L. GOKHALE, DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Dharmendra Kirthal
Versus
State of U.P. & Another
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of 2010
Decided On : 02-08-2013
Interpretation of the Statutes- Statements of Objects and Reasons of a Statute-It is the duty of the Court to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute and that there is always the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment- (Para 23, 24)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Objects and Reasons -The Legislature felt the compulsion to make special provisions against gangsterism and anti-social activities- The legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life- It has to be kept uppermost in mind that control of crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity, for it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens- Therefore, the legislature has, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective. (Para 44)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 12- Trial under the Act of any offence by special court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other court- Constitutional validity under Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950- The provision clearly mandates that the trial under this Act of any offence by the Special Court shall have precedence and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other courts to achieve the said purpose- The legislature thought it appropriate to provide that the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance- It is apt to note here that "any other case" against the accused in "any other court" does not include the Special Court- The emphasis is on speedy trial and not denial of it- The legislature has incorporated such a provision so that an accused does not face trial in two cases simultaneously and a case before the Special Court does not linger owing to clash of dates in trial- It is also worthy to note that the Special Court has been conferred jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to try any other offences with which the accused may, under any other law for the time being in force, have been charged and proceeded at the same trial. (Paras 32)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 12- Constitutional validity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950- The concept of speedy and fair trial is neither smothered nor scuttled when the trial in other courts are kept in abeyance-As far as Article 14 is concerned, we do not perceive that the procedure provided in the Act tantamounts to denial of fundamental fairness in trial- It does not really shock the judicial conscience and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be an anathema to the sense of justice-It is neither unfair nor arbitrary. The accused under the Act is in a distinct category and the differentiation between the two, namely, a person arrayed as an accused in respect of offences under other Acts and an accused under the Act is a rational one- It cannot be said to be arbitrary- It does not defeat the concept of permissible classification-The classification is in the permissible realm of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 43, 45, 46)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 12- Constitutional validity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950- As the trial under the Act would be in progress, the accused would have the fullest opportunity to defend himself and there cannot be denial of fair trial- Thus, he aforesaid provision does not frustrate theconcept of fair and speedy trial which are the imperative facets of Article 21 of the Constitution- No individual has any right to hazard others' liberty- The body polity governed by Rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a disorderly society. (Paras 36, 39)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 12- Constitutional validity under Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India, 1950- For the concept of preventive detention is not even remotely attracted to the arrest and detention for an offence under the Act. (Para 42)
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Section 19(4) and 19(5)- The Act empowers the special courts to grant bail to an accused under the Act though the provision is rigorous- There being a provision for grant of bail, there is no deprivation of liberty- The provision is not discriminatory and is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 39, 41)
Facts of the case :
The petitioner was undergoing trial before the learned Special Judge, District Baghpat, U.P., has called in question the constitutional validity of number of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Act 7 of 1986 being violative of Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Findings of the Court:
Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not infringe any of the facets of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result : The writ petition dismissed
Judgment :-
Dipak Misra, J.
In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is undergoing trial before the learned Special Judge, District Baghpat, U.P., has called in question the constitutional validity of number of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Act 7 of 1986) (for short “the Act”) being violative of Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and 300A of the Constitution of India and further prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the First Information Report dated 2.5.2010 giving rise to Crime No. 100 of 2010 registered at Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat.
2. At the very outset, it is imperative to state that this Court, on 20th September, 2010, while issuing notice, had passed the following order:-
“Issue notice in regard to the validity of Section 12 of the U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.”
Regard being had to the aforesaid, we shall only dwell upon and delve into the constitutional validity of the section 12 of the Act.
3. It is necessary to state here that the validity of the Act was called in question before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and a Full Bench of the High Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and another [AIR 1987 All 235] upheld the constitutional validity and dismissed the writ petition. The assail to the constitutional validity travelled to this Court in Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and another [Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 317 of 1987 dt. 9.12.1987] and a two-Judge Bench of this Court referred the matter to the Constitution Bench by stating thus: -
“Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.
We are informed that the question of vires of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts Act) 1984, is pending before a Constitution Bench. In the light of this, in our opinion, it would be proper that these matters wherein the constitutional validity of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is challenged, should also be heard by the Constitution Bench.”
4. When the matter was listed before the Constitution Bench along with connected matters, the larger Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569] observed as follows: -
“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.”
5. Thus, the constitutional validity of the Act was not decided by the said Constitution Bench. Thereafter, the matters relating to this Act were placed before another Constitution Bench. The Court, in Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and another [(2000) 10 SCC 145], took note of the challenge and the decision rendered in Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) and observed thus:-
“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
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
