1980 (4) TMI 309 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Special Courts Act, 1979, ensuring fair trials and direct appeals

V.C. Shukla & Sanjay Gandhi Versus State (Delhi Administration)

V.C. Shukla & Sanjay Gandhi Versus State (Delhi Administration) - 1980 AIR 1382, 1980 SCR (3) 500, 1980 SCC (2) 665 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 9 1979.2. Whether the procedure prescribed by the Act violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.3. Legality of the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court.4. Whether the Act's provisions are excessively harsh and prejudicial to the accused.5. Whether the evidence supports the conviction of the appellants for the alleged offences.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979:The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979, arguing that it contravened Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Act was passed to provide for the speedy trial of certain offences committed by persons holding high public or political offices. The Court held that the classification made by the Act was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., speedy trial. The Act was deemed to contain sufficient safeguards and guidelines, thus not violating Article 14. The Court further held that the Act did not violate Article 21, as it ensured a fair trial by providing for the appointment of sitting High Court judges as Special Judges, thus maintaining judicial independence.2. Whether the Procedure Prescribed by the Act Violates Articles 14 and 21:The appellants argued that the procedure prescribed by the Act was harsher and more prejudicial than the ordinary criminal procedure, thus violating Articles 14 and 21. The Court held that once the classification is held to be valid, the procedure prescribed, even if harsher, does not attract Article 14. The Court found that the procedure under the Act was not harsher but more advantageous to the accused, as it provided for a speedy trial and appeals directly to the Supreme Court, thus ensuring a fair trial.3. Legality of the Transfer of Appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court:The appellants contended that the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court under Section 7 of the Act was illegal. The Court held that the provision for automatic transfer of appeals to the Supreme Court was within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate any constitutional provisions. The Court noted that the transfer did not involve any judicial power being exercised by the legislature, thus upholding the validity of Section 7.4. Whether the Act's Provisions are Excessively Harsh and Prejudicial to the Accused:The appellants argued that the Act's provisions, particularly those related to appeals and revisions, were harsh and prejudicial. The Court found that the right of appeal to the Supreme Court provided under the Act was broader and more advantageous than the ordinary right of appeal to the High Court. The Court also noted that the exclusion of interlocutory orders from the scope of appeal was consistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not result in any prejudice to the accused.5. Whether the Evidence Supports the Conviction of the Appellants:The Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution to support the conviction of the appellants for various offences, including conspiracy to destroy the film 'Kissa Kursi Kaa.' The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy between the appellants or their involvement in the destruction of the film. The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of all charges and set aside their convictions and sentences.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Special Courts Act, 1979, and found that the procedure prescribed by the Act did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the transfer of appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court was legal and within the legislative competence of Parliament. However, the Court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of the appellants, leading to their acquittal on all charges.