https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171167 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. en-us Fri, 14 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171167 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171167