S.C.AGRAWAL, R.M.SAHAI, M.M.PUNCHHI, K.RAMASWAMY, S.R.PANDIAN
Kartar Singh: Kripa Shankar Rai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
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
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.