TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho have been charged in respect of offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, in terrorism related cases. In these appeals, they have also challenged the said judgment dated 13.4.2005 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA Nos. 1103 and 1105 of 2005, and other judgments of the said High Court and the judgment of the Bombay High Court which follow the said decision. The appellants in these appeals will be referred to as POTA accused'. 3. These appeals involve questions relating to the constitutional validity as also the interpretation of section 2(3) and (5) of Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act 2004. While the relatives of victims are aggrieved by the rejection of their challenge to section 2(3) and (5) of the said Act, the POTA accused are aggrieved by the direction to read section 2(3) subject to section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. To appreciate the rival contentions, the reasons that led to enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and its repeal, require to be noted. 4. To meet the challenge of terrorists indulging in wanton killings, arson, looting, and other heinous crimes in various parts of India, the Terrorist and Disrup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d screen the cases registered under the provisions of the Act and decide the further course of action in every matter and so on." 6. In 1995, TADA was allowed to lapse. A few years later, the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001, was promulgated on 24.10.2001, followed by Prevention of Terrorism (Second) Ordinance promulgated on 30-12-2001. In 2002, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, (POTA' for short) was enacted replacing the Prevention of Terrorism (Second) Ordinance, 2001. Section 60 of POTA provided for constitution of Review Committees to discharge the functions specified in sections 19(4), 40 and 46 of POTA. The said section is extracted below: "60. Review Committee: (1) The Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Review Committee for the purposes of this Act. (2) Every such Committee shall consist of a Chairperson and such other members not exceeding three and possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed. (3) A Chairperson of the Committee shall be a person who is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, who shall be appointed by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding against the accused under POTA, binding on the Central Government as well as State Government and the police officer investigating the offence. 8. The constitutional validity of sub-sections (4) to (7) of Section 60 inserted by the Prevention of Terrorism (Amendment) Act, 2003 was challenged by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Madras High Court. It was contended, inter alia, that enacting a provision that made the decisions of the Review Committee binding on the State Government was an encroachment upon the power and authority of the State to prosecute an offender. It was also contended that a provision that a proceeding pending in a court shall be deemed to have been withdrawn when the Review Committee opined that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused, would amount to interference with judicial functions and encroachment of judicial power' by the executive, in violation of the constitutional scheme. 9. The High Court of Madras upheld the validity of sub-sections (4) to (7) of Section 60 of POTA. But it further held that the opinion rendered by the Review Committee would not result in automatic withdrawal of cases pending in court; tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nadu challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court by filing Special Leave Petition before this Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition on 8-3-2004 this Court observed as follows:- "By the amendment, the decision of the Review Committee is made binding on the Central Government, State Governments and the Police Officers investigating the offence. The High Court has held, in our-view correctly, that these amendments are based on the recommendations made by the Constitution Bench of the Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569 and the judgment of this Court in R.M. Tiwari vs. State (1996) 2 SCC 610. These are the provisions which provide safeguards against misuse of' the stringent provisions of such an Act. In our view, the High Court has correctly held that the challenge cannot be sustained. The High Court has also correctly held that the directions given by the Review Committee could only be subject to Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code". 11. In view of adverse reports about the misuse of the provisions of POTA in some States, the Parliament repealed POTA, by the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principal Act shall, while reviewing cases, have powers of a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) discovery and production of any document; (b) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office. (5) The Central Government may constitute more Review Committees, as it may consider necessary, for completing the review within the period specified in sub-section (3)." 12. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 2 of the Repealing Act were challenged before the High Court of Gujarat, by the relatives of victims. By judgment dated 13.4.2005, the High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the said provisions of the Repealing Act. The High Court was of the view that the provisions of section 2(3) of the Repealing Act were similar to the provisions of section 60(4) to (7) of POTA. Therefore following the decision of Madras High Court relating to the validity of section 60(4) to (7) of POTA, it held that section 2(3) of the Repealing Act did not dispense with the requirements of Section 321 of the Code; and where the Review Committee, in regard to any case where cognizance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereof reads thus: "The public prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the court at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; ..." In R.M.Tiwari (supra), a case under TADA, this court observed: "7. It is, therefore, clear that the Designated Court was right in taking the view that withdrawal from prosecution is not to be permitted mechanically by the court on an application for that purpose made by the public prosecutor. It is equally clear that the public prosecutor also has not to act mechanically in the discharge of his statutory function under Section 321 CrPC on such a recommendation being made by the Review Committee; and that it is the duty of the public prosecutor to satisfy himself that it is a fit case for withdrawal from prosecution before he seeks the consent of the court for that purpose. 8. It appears that in these matters, the public prosecutor did not fully appreciate the requirements of Section 321 CrPC and made the applications for withdrawal from prosecution only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference order (after correcting certain typographical errors) reads thus: "It appears that similar provisions, though not exactly in the same terms, under the earlier Ordinance and the Amendment Act came up for consideration before the High Courts in India and one of the judgments was appealed against and was disposed of by this Court by its order of 8th March, 2004. This Court noticed that by the amendment of 2002 the decision of the Review Committee is made binding on the Central Government, the State Governments and the Police Officers investigating the offence. This Court went on to observe that the High Court had correctly held that the challenge cannot be sustained. The High Court had correctly held that the direction given by the Review Committee could only be subject to Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We notice that by reason of the amendment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the provisions introduced namely, sub-sections (4) to (7) in Section 60 did provide that if the Review Committee was of the opinion that there was no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused and issued directions under sub-Section (4), then the proceeding pending ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnizance has been taken by the court, shall be subject to the opinion of the Review Committee under section 2(3) of the Repealing Act and once the Review Committee holds that there was no prima facie case to continue the proceedings against the accused, the case shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with effect from the date of issuance of the direction by such Review Committee. It is submitted that in such cases, Section 321 of the Code would have no application and there is neither any need for the Public Prosecutor to file any application for withdrawal from prosecution, nor any need or occasion for the court to consider whether consent should be given for such withdrawal from prosecution, as the proceedings are deemed to have been withdrawn with effect from the date of the issuance of the direction by the Review Committee. 17. The counsel for the State of Gujarat, on the other hand, contended that the High Court had rightly held that sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Repealing Act does not dispense with the requirements of Section 321 of the Code for withdrawal and that after the Review Committee formed an opinion, the same will have to be placed before the court by the Pub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., under our constitutional order, belongs to those entrusted with judicial power. One of the few exceptions to the uninterrupted flow of the court's process is Section 321 Cr.P.C., 1973. But even here it is the Public Prosecutor, and not any executive authority, who is entrusted by the Code with the power to withdraw from a prosecution, and that also with the consent of the court. We repeat for emphasis. To interdict, intercept or jettison an enquiry or trial in a court, save in the manner and to the extent provided for in the Code itself, is lawlessness. The even course of criminal justice cannot be thwarted by the executive, however, high the accused, however sure government feels a case is false, however unpalatable the continuance of the prosecution to the powers-that-be who wish to scuttle court justice because of hubris, affection or other noble or ignoble consideration. Justicing, under our constitutional order, belongs to the judges. Among the very few exceptions to this uninterrupted flow of the court process is Section 494, Cr.P.C. 1898. Even here, the Public Prosecutor -not any executive authority- is entrusted by the Code with a limited power to withdraw from a pros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioners necessitate examination. It is respectfully submitted that the language used in sub section 2(3) of the Repeal Act ex-facie reveals that Section 60(5) of the amended POTA (2003) has been omitted by the legislature in the provisions of Section 2(3) of the Repeal Act. Section 60(5) of the former Act made the opinion of the Review Committee binding on the Central Government, State Government and the Police Officer investigating the case. Section 2(3) of the Repeal Act is a new provision, enacted by the legislature, which provides for deemed withdrawal of a case (even if cognizance has been taken by the court), if the Review Committee forms an opinion that there is no prima facie case made out." 20. The learned Additional Solicitor General elaborating upon the said stand submitted that the power exercised by the Review Committee under section 2(3) of the Repealing Act, though not subject to the supervising power of the Special court under section 321 of the Code, is amenable to the power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226. He therefore submitted that there are adequate safeguards against any misuse or abuse of power by the Review Committee under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to meet special objectives so long as they are not arbitrary or discriminatory. [Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra - 1952 SCR 435 and In Re : The Special Courts Bill, 1978 - 1979 (1) SCC 380]. (f) If any Central Act is repealed, without making any provision for savings, the provisions contained in section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 will apply. But where the repealing Act itself contains specific provisions in regard to savings, the express or special provision in the Repealing Act will apply. Section 6 of General Clauses Act makes it clear that it will not apply, when a different intention appears in the Repealing Statute. Where the provision relating to savings is excluded, the repeal will have the effect of complete obliteration of the statute. (vide State of Orissa v. M.A.Tullock and Co. - 1964 (4) SCR 461, Nar Bahadur Bhandari v. State of Sikkim - 1998 (5) SCC 39 and Southern Petrochemicals Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector - 2007 (5) SCC 447). 23. The Repealing Act contains an exhaustive provision relating to savings in sub-sections (2) to (5) of section 2. Therefore the savings from repeal will be governed by section 2(2) to 2(5) of the Repeali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with judicial power. It is therefore unnecessary to examine whether section 2(3) of the Repealing Act is an encroachment of judicial power, though such an examination was done with reference to the challenge to section 60(4) to (7) of POTA. Many tests applied for deciding the constitutional validity of live and current statutes, may not apply to winding up' provisions in a savings clause of a Repealing Act, dealing with repeal. The Parliament has the legislative competence to make the Repealing Act. The Repealing Act repeals POTA and provides for certain savings from repeal, to meet the special features of the repealed statute. It does not violate any constitutional provisions. Hence the Repealing Act and in particular section 2(3) and (5) thereof are valid and constitutional. 25. This takes us to the second question as to the true import of section 2(3) of the Repealing Act. Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Repealing Act makes it clear that the repeal of POTA will not affect any investigation or legal proceeding in respect of any penalty or punishment under the principal Act, and any such investigation or legal proceedings may be instituted or continued, as if the princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he requirements of section 321 are complied with. That would amount to rewriting section 2(3) which is clearly impermissible. 27. The Madras High Court proceeded on the basis that the exercise of power by the Review Committee in regard to review of POTA cases, was governed by sub-sections (4) to (6) of section 60 of POTA. It found that these sub-sections provided that the decision of the Review Committee on review, was binding only on the State Government and police officers and not on the public prosecutor or the court. The Madras High court got over sub-section (7) of section 60 of POTA (which provided that when the Review Committee opines that there is no prima facie case, then the proceedings pending against the accused shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date of such direction), by holding that the said sub-section did not create any new right other than those mentioned in sub-sections (4) to (6) of section 60, and was only in the nature of an explanation spelling out the effect of the exercise of the power in sub-sections (4) to (6) of section 60 of POTA. It held that sub-section (7) of section 60 cannot be read independently by itself. It further held that sub-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused, the cases shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. If the Parliament wanted to make the provisions of section 2(3) of the Repealing Act subject to Section 321 of the Code, it would have been done by making appropriate provisions therefor. As that is not done, plain meaning of the words of the legislation has to be given effect to. 29. Section 2(3) of the Repealing Act also contains clear indications which exclude section 321 of the Code. They are : (i) The review is by Review Committee with a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court as the Chairman, having the power of a civil court in respect of discovery and production of documents and requisitioning records. (ii) All cases registered under POTA are required to be reviewed irrespective of whether any application was made by an aggrieved person or not, so as to find out whether there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the accused under POTA; (iii) The sub-section clearly provides that where a Review Committee opines that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused, cases pending in court also shall be deemed to have been withdrawn with effect from the date of issuance of such direction by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and are required to be given as an one time measure with reference to a repealed statute. The availability of judicial review under Article 226 in the event of errors and abuse, is a sufficient safeguard and deterrent against any wrong doing by the Review Committee. 32. We therefore hold that once the Review Committee on review under section 2(3) of the Repealing Act, expresses the opinion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused, in cases in which cognizance has been taken by the Court, such cases shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The only role of the Public Prosecutor in the matter is to bring to the notice of the court, the direction of the Review Committee. The court on satisfying itself as to whether such an opinion was rendered, will have to record that the case stands withdrawn by virtue of section 2(3) of the Repealing Act. The court will not examine the correctness or propriety of the opinion nor exercise any supervisory jurisdiction in regard to such a opinion of the Review Committee. But we make it clear that if the opinion of the Review Committee is challenged by any aggrieved party in writ proceedings and is set aside, the Court where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the application under section 321 of Cr.P.C. The said order is reproduced as under:- "the Special Leave Petitions are filed against the judgment of the High Court challenging the amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 which gives to the Review Committee powers which earlier it did not have. By the amendment, the decision of the Review Committee is made binding on the Central Government, State Governments and the Police Officers investigation the offence. The High Court has held, in our view correctly, that these amendments are based on the recommendations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC and the judgment of this Court in R.M. Tiwari v. State (1998) 2 SCC 610. There are the provisions which provide safeguards against misuse of the stringent provisions of such an Act. In our view, the High Court has also correctly held that the directions given by the Review Committee could only be subject to Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed." 4. The High Court of Gujarat was dealing with a POTA (R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding cases were treated as automatically withdrawn. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment of Madras High Court which has been approved by the Supreme Court, we are inclined to agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that the impugned provisions should be read in conjunction, with Section 321 of the Code and same do not, in any manner, encroach upon the judicial power of the State and that the opinion formed by the Review Committee on the prima-facie nature of the case under the 2002 Act has to be given due weightage by the Special court and accepted unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so." (emphasis added] 7. It appears as though the Gujarat High Court considered "proceedings pending against the accused" to include those proceedings in which the Special Court had taken cognizance of the matter. From this limited interpretation, one can call the statutes pari materia. It seems that the High Court correctly downplayed the difference between the Review Committee's having to receive an application before taking action and the Review Committee's having to take action immediately and review all pending cases. 8. Ultimatel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that analyzed section 321 of Cr.P.C. in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the Court found that the Committee's recommendation to withdraw was not binding and was subject to section 321 of Cr.P.C. This case does not apply to the present dispute because the Court was not dealing with POTA (Repeal) 2004, whose text expressly states that the Committee can deem a case withdrawn. Instead, the case was interpreting the State Review Committee's interpretation of Kartar Singh's directions, which are ambiguous as to whether section 321 of Cr.P.C. should apply to the Committee(s) it spawned. 10. The Madras High Court took a similar stand but more closely adhered to the case law that has interpreted section 321 of Cr.P.C. by retaining the public prosecutor's ability to make an independent decision. The High Court observed thus: "The words in sub-section (7) of Section 60 of POTA, the proceedings pending against the accused shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date of such direction' shall have to be understood only in the context of Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure to mean that if the Review Committee forms an opinion that the prosecut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eview forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. and when judicial review is removed - even at the trial court level - the question becomes one of degree : has the basic structure been destroyed? Our short answer is that because POTA (Repeal) 2004 has not removed judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136, the basic structure has not been destroyed. Given the gravity of this question, I deem it necessary to explain my reasoning. 15. The Courts' powers to grant consent to a prosecutor's request to withdraw exits in the absence of section 321 of Cr.P.C. This is because in the matter concerning judiciary, it should have the final say over cases that have been placed before it. It goes without saying that the Court's decision to grant consent to an application for withdrawal is a judicial function. If it is granted, the case is over. Resolving legal disputes is the core function of the judiciary. The power to take a final decision once a case is before a Court, irrespective of the stage at which the determination is made, should rest with the judge. To the extent POTA (Repeal) 2004 takes this decision away from the judge, it implicates the basic structure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstitution of India. (1973) 4 SCC 225, per Sikri, C.J., as paras 292 and 293, per Shelat and Grover JJ at para 582 - "Demarcation of power between the legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary". 19. I need not dwell on the fact that the separation of powers is part of the basic structure. This has been well established in a plethora of cases. [See: S.R. Bommai and Others v. Union of India and Others (1994) 3 SCC 1, Per Chandrachud, J. at 2742, per Beg. J. at 2426-30, 2472, per Ray, C.J., at 2320; State of Bihar and Another v. Bal Mukund Sah and Others (2000) 4 SCC 640 (para 32); I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1; Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 (Suppl) SCC 1; Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others (1980) 3 SCC 625; Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others (1991) 4 SCC 699; I. Manilal Singh v. Dr. H. Borobabu Singh and Another 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 718; Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another (2002) 5 SCC 294; Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, In re (Gujarat Assembly Election matter), (2002) 8 SCC 237; Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Another (2005) 3 SCC 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entary elections. [Para 8]. In addition, it nullified any court order that had voided an election. [Para 8]. Article 329(A) (5) directed the Court to dismiss any appeal pending before the Supreme Court consistent with 329(A)(4). [Para 9]. Article 329(A)(6) stated that the provisions of 329 would go in effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. [Para 10]. 25. The Court struck 329A(4), holding it in violation of the basic structure. Article 329(A)(4) appropriated the Court's power to adjudicate election laws, encroaching on the judiciary in violation of separation of powers. In voiding this part of the 39th Amendment, the Court declared that separation of powers and judicial review (by necessary implication) are part of the basic structure because of the retrospective effect of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 40 of 1975. I turn to a number of relevant passages for further guidance:- "Para 60: (Ray, C.J.) It is true that no express mention is made in our Constitution of vesting in the judiciary the judicial power as is to be found in the American Constitution. But a division of the three main functions of Government is recognised in our Constitution.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arliament may not also turn its attention from the important task of legislation to deciding court cases for which it lacks the expertise and the apparatus. If it gathers facts, it gathers facts of policy. If it records findings, it does so without a pleading and without framing any issues. and worst of all, if it decides a Court case, it decides without hearing the parties and in defiance of the fundamental principles of natural justice." 28. This raises the issue of the Review Committee's competence to decide the court case. Even a ruling wherein prima facie cases are withdrawn, the decision to withdraw is final and terminates the case in favour of the accused. A case has thus been decided. The question regarding the Committee's competence loses some relevance when I consider that the aggrieved party could still file an appeal against such a decision. Nevertheless, the Review Committee is an executive body that is making a judicial decision. 29. The Executive appoints the Review Committee. majority of its members belong to the Executive Branch. Under POTA (Repeal) 2004, the Executive's Review Committee has the power to decide cases. Thus, judicial review has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Review Committee's decision. 34. Justice Mathew's opinion shows how judicial review is necessarily linked to the separation of powers doctrine. By stripping the Court of judicial review of election cases, Article 329A(4) bestows a power on an organ of government that is incapable of providing a just result. Justice Mathew stated at para 325 that: "It was an essential feature of democracy as established by the Constitution, namely, (that there should be a) a resolution of an election dispute by an authority by the exercise of judicial power by ascertaining the adjudicative facts and applying and applying the relevant law for determining the real representative of the people." 35. At para 327, Justice Mathew holds Article 329A(4) unconstitutional, in violation of the separation of powers. Given that our separation of powers is somewhat flexible, he finds that the Parliament could only remove judicial review by enacting a constitutional amendment. Para 327 reads as under:- "The amending body, though possessed of judicial power, had no competence to exercise it, unless it passed a Constitutional law enabling it to do so. If, however, the decision of the am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... namely, the limited amending power of Parliament and the power of judicial review with a view to examining whether any authority under the Constitution has exceeded the limits of its powers, I shall immediately proceed to state the reasons why I think that these two features form part of the basic structure of the Constitution." 37. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 is another case wherein the Court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to remove judicial power. This Court reviewed the 42nd Amendment through which the Parliament sought to insert Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. [para 5]. Article 323-b (2) empowered the Parliament or the State Legislatures to set up Tribunal to resolve a wide variety of disputes: tax cases, foreign exchange matters, industrial and labour cases, ceiling or urban property, criminal matters etc. [para 35]. Article 323-B(3)(d) excluded the jurisdiction of all courts, save for the Supreme Court's Article 136 jurisdiction. [para 35]. In effect, this provision enabled the Government to divest the lower and High Courts of the bulk of their workload. [para 35]. 38. The Court held that judicial review, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facie case for proceeding against the accused," then the case shall be deemed withdrawn. [See POTA (Repeal) 2004, S. 3(a) and (b)]. Where there is some evidence that suggests that a case against the accused might exist, the Review Committee must allow the proceedings to continue. 42. Those who are aggrieved by the Review Committee's decision to withdraw still have judicial recourse under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under this Article, it may take appropriate steps in the High Court (or in this Court) against the Review Committee's decision to withdraw. One cannot say that the aggrieved parties are without a remedy, when those parties can approach the High Court (or this Court). I make it clear that the High Court should examine the aggrieved parties' cases, if those parties choose to contest the Review Committee's decision to withdraw. 43. Unlike the provisions at issue in the Election case, Minerva Mills, L. Chandra and I. R. Coehlo (supra), POTA (Repeal) 2004 do not strip the higher judiciary of judicial review. As such, POTA (Repeal) 2004 survives. A violation of separation of powers need not rise to such a level before this Court will consider it an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by another law for the time being in force." 47. The Special Act must be deemed to supercede the provisions of the general Act. In Harbans Singh and Others v. The State, AIR 1953 (All.) 179 at p. 18, the U.P. Private Forests Act (Act No. 6 of 1949) was a special statute that precluded Magistrates of the First Class from trying violations under the Act. Under Schedule III of the general Cr.P.C. of 1898, Magistrates of the First Class had the power to try similar offences. The Allahabad High Court held that the special law must trump the general and set aside the conviction entered by the Magistrate of the First Class. The Court relied on Section 5 of the CrPC 1898, from which S. 5 of the CrPC, 1973 borrowed: "Para 4. It is, therefore clear that the powers conferred under the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are subject to any special provisions that might be made with regard to the exercise or regulation of those powers by any special Act. The special Act having made such provisions with regard to the offences under the said Act must be deemed to supersede the provisions of the gene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l decision. Inserting section 321 of Cr.P.C. itself into POTA (Repeal) 2004 defies logic and produces an absurd result. "The object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the will of the Legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended." (Owen Thomas Mangin v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, [1971) 2 WLR 39, p. 42 (PC) (Lord Donovan), as referred in Justice G.P. Singh's celebrated book, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th Edition, 2008 at page 129. 52. The appellant further argued that requiring two withdrawals disregards Parliamentary intent. The Statute's Statement of Objects and Reasons expresses the Parliament's intent. It reads as under: "1. The provisions of Terrorism Act, 2002 was enacted as a Special law to deal with terrorist acts. 2. There have been allegations of gross misuse of the provisions of the Act by some State Governments. Views have been expressed that provisions of the Act were misused in cases where they should not have been invoked. It has also been observed in various quarters that the Act has failed to serve its intended purpose and as a result, there have been persistent d....