Special Judge allocation powers upheld where guided by speedy trial objectives, but later central case-allocation notification was quashed.

Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld as constitutionally valid because the power to appoint a Special Judge for a case or group of cases is guided by the Act's object of securing speedy trials in the public interest, rather than being unguided discretion. The State notification dated 30.4.1997 allocating corruption cases to Special Judges was also upheld, as the record showed case volume and complexity, no proven mala fides or discrimination, and valid High Court consultation. The Central Government notification dated 5.2.1999 was quashed because the allocation power under Section 4(2) had to be exercised only where statutory necessity existed, which was not shown on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, insofar as it empowers the Government to appoint a Special Judge for a case or group of cases, is unconstitutional as conferring unguided and arbitrary discretion; (ii) Whether the State notification dated 30.4.1997 appointing Special Judges and allocating specified corruption cases to them is invalid on the grounds of mala fides, discrimination, and want of valid consultation with the High Court; (iii) Whether the Central Government notification dated 5.2.1999 issued under Section 4(2) allocating cases among Special Judges was valid.

Issue (i): Whether Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, insofar as it empowers the Government to appoint a Special Judge for a case or group of cases, is unconstitutional as conferring unguided and arbitrary discretion

Analysis: The power under Section 3(1) is controlled by the scheme and object of the Act, which is to secure speedy trial of corruption cases in public interest. The expression "as may be necessary" supplies the guiding principle for exercise of the power, and the discretion is not absolute or uncanalised. Appointment of a Special Judge for a particular case or group of cases does not create a different class of court or procedure, because the accused is still tried by a judge of the same class under the same procedure.

Conclusion: Section 3(1) is constitutionally valid and the challenge under Articles 14 and 21 fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the State notification dated 30.4.1997 appointing Special Judges and allocating specified corruption cases to them is invalid on the grounds of mala fides, discrimination, and want of valid consultation with the High Court

Analysis: The material on record showed a large volume and complexity of pending corruption cases and justified the creation of additional Special Judges for expeditious trial. The record did not establish mala fides in fact or in law, nor any discriminatory selection of cases. The proposal for additional courts and appointment of Special Judges had the approval and consultation of the High Court, and the allocation of cases was an administrative act which did not warrant invalidation.

Conclusion: The State notification dated 30.4.1997 is valid and is not vitiated by mala fides, discrimination, or invalid consultation.

Issue (iii): Whether the Central Government notification dated 5.2.1999 issued under Section 4(2) allocating cases among Special Judges was valid

Analysis: Section 4(2) authorises allocation among Special Judges, but the power must still be exercised where necessity exists and in furtherance of the statutory object. No material was shown to justify issuance of the notification after the cases had long been pending and when the allocation had already been functioning under the State arrangement. The notification was therefore treated as unnecessary at that stage and inconsistent with the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The Central Government notification dated 5.2.1999 is invalid and stands quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the statutory power and to the State notification failed, but the subsequent Central Government allocation order was set aside, resulting in dismissal of the appellants' challenges except for the appeal that succeeded against the Central notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory discretion to appoint Special Judges is valid where it is guided by the Act's object of speedy trial in public interest, and allocation power under the Act must be exercised only when the statutory necessity for such allocation is shown.

---