SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA, N.L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.*
-held, policy of law and expediency are for legislature to decide. Questions of validity of law are advisory or adjudicatory functions of Courts.
-held, a reference on question of fact can also be made by the President under Article 143 if other conditions of the Article are satisfied. Not necessarily the question must have actually arisen for reference to Supreme Court for opinion.
-held, Article 246(2) gives clear power to Parliament to make laws with respect to constitution and organisation i.e. creation of setting up of special courts. The Special Courts Bill 1978 is within the ambit of legislative power of Parliament.
Judgement
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. (for himself and on behalf of P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali JJ.):- On Aug. 1, 1978 the President of India made a reference to this Court under Art. 143 (1) of the Constitution for consideration of the question whether the Special Courts Bill, 1978 or any of its provisions, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid. The full text of the reference is as follows:
WHEREAS certain Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Govt. under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) have submitted reports which indicate that there is reason to believe that various offences have been committed by persons holding high political and public offices during high political and public offices during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated the 25th June, 1975, and the period immediately preceding that Proclamation;
AND WHEREAS investigations into such offences are being made in accordance with law and are likely to be completed soon;
AND WHEREAS suggestions have been made that the persons in respect of whom the investigations reval that a prima facie case has been made out should be tried speedily in Special Courts constituted for that purpose;
AND WHEREAS a proposal has been made that legislation should be enacted for the creation of an adequate number of Special Courts for the speedy trial of such offences on the lines of the Bill, a copy whereof is annexed hereto (hereinafter referred to as the Bill);
AND WHEREAS doubts have been expressed with regard to the constitutional validity of the Bill and its provisions;
AND WHEREAS there is likelihood of the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, and any action taken thereunder, being challenged in courts of law involving protracted and avoidable litigation;
AND WHEREAS in view of what has been hereinbefore stated, it appears to me that the question of law hereinafter set out is likely to arise and is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the SC of India thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Cl. (1) of Art. 143 of the Constitution, I Neelam Sanjiva reddy, President of India, hereby refer the following question to the SC of India for consideration and report thereon, namely :- 486
Question
(1) Whether the Bill or any of the provisions thereof, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid?
New Delhi,
Dated 1st day of August, 1978
President of India"
2. Annexed to the order of reference is a copy of the Bill which runs thus :
"THE SPECIAL COURTS BILL, 1978
A Bill to provide for the trial of a certain class of offences."
WHEREAS Commissions of Enquiry appointed under the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 have rendered reports disclosing the existence of prima facie evidence of offences committed by persons who have held high public or political offices in the country and others connected with the commission of such offences during the operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated 25th June, 1975, and during the preceding period commencing 27th Feb., 1975 when it became apparent that offenders were being screened by those whose duty it was to bring them to book;
AND WHEREAS investigations conducted by the Government through its agencies have also disclosed similar offences committed during the period aforesaid.
AND WHEREAS the offences referred to in the recitals aforesaid were committed or continued during the operation of the Promulgation of Emergency dated 25th June, 1975 during which a grave emergency was clamped on the whole country, civil liberties were withdrawn to a great extent important fundamental rights of the people were suspended, strict censorship on the press was placed and judicial powers were crippled to a large extent;
AND WHEREAS it is the constitutional, legal and moral obligation of the State to prosecute persons, involved in the said offences;
AND WHEREAS the ordinary criminal courts d
Kangsari Haldar v. State of West Bengal
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki nath Khosa
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
Budhan Choudary v. State of Bihar
referred to : State of Rajasthan V. Union of India
referred to : Fanardan Reddy V. state of Hyderabad
Kothi Rang Rawat v. State of Saurastra
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. State of Bombay
State of Wist Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
Syed Qasim Raw v. State of Hyderabad
Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad
Habeeb Mohamed v. State of Hyderabad
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh
Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal
Asgarali Nazarali Singaporawolla v. State of Bombay
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar
The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclosures
Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delia
State of Assam v. Ranga Mahmmad
referred to : State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi
Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne
State af orissa v. Sudhansu Sekharm Misra
Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal
relied on : Murthy Match Works v. The Asstt Collector of central Excise
State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand
State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Prasad
State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd Ahmedabad
Mohmmad Shujat Ali v. Union of India
The Gujarat Legislative Assembly
Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab
followed : Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal
High court of Punjab and Haryana v. State of Haryana
Sanjay Gandhiji v. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Chief Justice ofAndhra Pradesh v. L V A Dixitulu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.