TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Unconstitutional provision struck down for lack of reasonable basis in referral of cases.</h1> <h3>STATE OF WB. Versus ANWAR ALI SARKAR</h3> The Supreme Court held that Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 was unconstitutional as it allowed the State Government to refer ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950.2. Interpretation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.3. Validity of the Special Court's procedure under the Act.4. Impact of the Act on the rights of the accused.5. Delegation of power to the State Government.6. Discrimination and classification under the Act.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950:The primary issue was whether Section 5(1) of the Act, which allowed the State Government to direct any case to be tried by a Special Court, was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Section 5(1) was unconstitutional to the extent that it permitted the State Government to refer individual cases to the Special Court without any reasonable classification or basis, thus violating the equal protection clause.2. Interpretation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution:Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Court emphasized that this does not mean identical treatment for all persons but requires reasonable classification. The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the law. The Court found that the Act failed to provide a reasonable basis for classification, thus violating Article 14.3. Validity of the Special Court's Procedure under the Act:The procedure prescribed by the Act for the Special Courts deviated significantly from the Criminal Procedure Code, including the elimination of committal proceedings, trial without jury or assessors, and the power to convict for offences not charged. The Court held that these deviations, while aimed at speedier trials, did not justify the arbitrary selection of cases for trial under this special procedure, thereby violating the principle of equality.4. Impact of the Act on the Rights of the Accused:The Act was found to prejudice the rights of the accused by subjecting them to a less advantageous procedure compared to the normal criminal procedure. This included the lack of a committal stage, no jury trial, and the possibility of conviction for uncharged offences. The Court held that such differential treatment without a reasonable basis amounted to discrimination against the accused.5. Delegation of Power to the State Government:The Court examined whether the delegation of power to the State Government under Section 5(1) was valid. It was held that the Act provided an uncontrolled and unguided discretion to the State Government, which could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory application. The Court concluded that such delegation without clear guidelines or standards violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.6. Discrimination and Classification under the Act:The Court found that the Act did not provide any reasonable classification for the offences or cases to be tried by the Special Courts. The preamble of the Act, which mentioned the need for speedier trials, was not sufficient to justify the arbitrary selection of cases. The Court emphasized that any classification must be based on substantial differences relevant to the object of the legislation, which was absent in this case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was unconstitutional to the extent that it allowed the State Government to refer individual cases to the Special Court without a reasonable basis, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the need for reasonable classification and the protection of the rights of the accused under the equal protection clause.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
