1970 (3) TMI 168 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms DSPE jurisdiction in interstate cases with consent; Maharashtra consent valid; Union Territories included in Entry 80; laws adaptation upheld.

The Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Gurudasmal and Ors.

The Management of Advance Insurance Co. Ltd Versus Gurudasmal and Ors. - (1970) 1SCC 633 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE).2. Jurisdiction of the DSPE to investigate cases in other states.3. Validity of the consent given by the Government of Maharashtra.4. Interpretation of Entry 80 of the Union List concerning the extension of police powers.5. Adaptation and modification of laws under Article 372 and Article 372A of the Constitution.6. Meaning and implication of the term 'belonging to' in the context of police forces.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE):The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the DSPE, arguing that it was not a constitutional body. The court examined the history and legislative framework of the DSPE, tracing its origins to Ordinances enacted during British India and subsequent adaptations and amendments post-independence. The court concluded that the DSPE Act of 1946 and its amendments were validly enacted and adapted, thus upholding its constitutionality.2. Jurisdiction of the DSPE to Investigate Cases in Other States:The appellant contended that the DSPE had no jurisdiction to investigate cases outside Delhi. The court referred to Section 5(1) of the DSPE Act, which allows the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of DSPE members to any area, including railway areas, subject to the consent of the state government concerned as per Section 6. The court noted that the Government of Maharashtra had consented to the DSPE exercising its powers in Maharashtra, thus validating the DSPE's jurisdiction in the state.3. Validity of the Consent Given by the Government of Maharashtra:The appellant questioned the validity of the consent given by the Maharashtra Government. The court examined the affidavit of the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, which confirmed that the Chief Minister had duly considered and given consent. The court held that there was a presumption of regularity of official acts and found no reason to doubt the validity of the consent.4. Interpretation of Entry 80 of the Union List Concerning the Extension of Police Powers:The appellant argued that Entry 80 of the Union List, which allows the extension of police powers, did not apply to Union Territories. The court referred to the adapted definition of 'State' in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, which includes Union Territories. The court held that Entry 80 must be read to include Union Territories, thereby allowing the extension of DSPE's powers to states with the necessary consent.5. Adaptation and Modification of Laws under Article 372 and Article 372A of the Constitution:The appellant contended that the President's power to adapt laws under Article 372 had expired, making the adaptation of the General Clauses Act in 1956 invalid. The court clarified that Article 372A, introduced by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, provided a fresh power to the President to adapt and modify laws. The court held that the adaptation of the General Clauses Act was valid under Article 372A, thus supporting the inclusion of Union Territories in the definition of 'State.'6. Meaning and Implication of the Term 'Belonging to' in the Context of Police Forces:The appellant argued that the term 'belonging to' in Entry 80 implied a police force employed by a state, not merely located in it. The court interpreted the term to mean a police force constituted and functioning in an area, emphasizing the territorial nexus. The court held that the DSPE, originally constituted for Delhi and later adapted to function in Union Territories, met this criterion. The court rejected the appellant's argument and upheld the validity of the DSPE's operations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the constitutionality and jurisdiction of the DSPE to investigate cases in other states with the necessary consent. The court upheld the validity of the consent given by the Government of Maharashtra and interpreted Entry 80 of the Union List to include Union Territories. The court also validated the adaptation of laws under Article 372A and clarified the meaning of the term 'belonging to' in the context of police forces. The appeal was found devoid of force and was dismissed with no order as to costs.