Post-Constitution use of discriminatory criminal procedure violated equal protection and made the convictions unsustainable.

Continued application of a special criminal procedure to pending trials after the Constitution came into force was unconstitutional where it created unequal treatment without rational nexus to the statute's object. The procedure under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 materially departed from ordinary criminal process by dispensing with committal, limiting the evidentiary memorandum, enlarging discretion to refuse defence witnesses, and excluding transfer and revision remedies. Proceedings validly taken before the Constitution were not disturbed retrospectively, but post-Constitution use of the discriminatory procedure engaged Article 14 and could not deny accused persons ordinary procedural safeguards. The convictions and sentences therefore could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued trial of the appellants by the Special Judge under the special procedure prescribed by the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, after the commencement of the Constitution violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India and rendered the convictions and sentences unsustainable.

Analysis: The special procedure under the Act departed in material respects from the ordinary criminal procedure by dispensing with committal, permitting only a memorandum of evidence, conferring wider discretion to refuse defence witnesses, and excluding transfer and revision remedies. The majority held that, although proceedings validly conducted before the Constitution were not affected retrospectively by Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, the continued application after the Constitution of a discriminatory procedure to pending trials implicated the newly acquired fundamental right to equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification based on cases already directed to the Special Judge was held to have no rational nexus with the object of the Act, and the accused could not be denied ordinary procedural safeguards after the Constitution came into force.

Conclusion: The continued post-Constitution application of the special procedure was unconstitutional and the convictions and sentences could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural law that validly operated before the Constitution cannot continue to be applied after the Constitution if, in its post-Constitution operation, it results in unreasonable discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India; pending proceedings must then proceed according to lawful non-discriminatory procedure.

---