https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171360 Sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were upheld as constitutionally valid because they create an enabling framework for appointing Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates, with legal qualification, High Court control, and limited powers providing a rational basis linked to relieving petty criminal work. The challenge under Article 14 failed because the provisions do not confine appointments to Government servants or exclude suitable members of the subordinate judiciary. The Court also required States and High Courts to activate the scheme promptly in view of heavy pendency, by seeking appointments, fixing numbers of special magistrates, and making appointments expeditiously to divert petty and compoundable cases from regular criminal courts. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2022 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171360 Sections 13(1) and 18(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were upheld as constitutionally valid because they create an enabling framework for appointing Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates, with legal qualification, High Court control, and limited powers providing a rational basis linked to relieving petty criminal work. The challenge under Article 14 failed because the provisions do not confine appointments to Government servants or exclude suitable members of the subordinate judiciary. The Court also required States and High Courts to activate the scheme promptly in view of heavy pendency, by seeking appointments, fixing numbers of special magistrates, and making appointments expeditiously to divert petty and compoundable cases from regular criminal courts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171360