9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the impugned Ordinance. 3. Alleged discriminatory treatment under Sections 9 and 11 of the Ordinance. 4. Delegation of legislative power to the executive government. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Ordinance under Article 14: The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, asserting it violated Article 14 of the Constitution by being discriminatory. The Court examined whether the Ordinance provided a reasonable classification, distinguishing persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and whether this classification had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The Court noted that the Ordinance aimed to combat an increasing number of crimes such as looting, robbery, and murder by marauding gangs in certain areas of the State. The preamble of the original Ordinance, which aimed to provide for public safety, maintenance of public order, and preservation of peace and tranquillity, was considered to govern the amending Ordinance as well. The Court held that the classification based on the type and territory of offences was reasonable and valid, as the variations from the normal procedure authorized by the Ordinance were not disadvantageous enough to imperil the chances of a fair and impartial trial. Thus, the Ordinance did not violate Article 14. 2. Jurisdiction of the Special Court: The appellant contended that the Special Court's jurisdiction, constituted under the impugned Ordinance, was void. The Court examined the provisions of the Ordinance, which allowed the State Government to constitute Special Courts for specified areas and direct them to try certain offences under a special procedure. The Court found that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the appellant and the persons accused along with him, as the Ordinance was not unconstitutional. 3. Alleged Discriminatory Treatment: The appellant argued that Sections 9 and 11 of the Ordinance were discriminatory, as they allowed the State Government to establish Special Courts and direct them to try offences under a special procedure, which differed from the ordinary procedure. The Court observed that legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory and that the power of the State to regulate criminal trials by constituting different courts with different procedures according to the needs of different parts of its territory is an essential part of its police power. The Court held that the variations in procedure authorized by the Ordinance did not amount to a denial of a fair and impartial trial and were justified by the need to address the specific criminal activities in certain areas. Therefore, the Ordinance did not result in discriminatory treatment. 4. Delegation of Legislative Power: The appellant's counsel argued that the delegation of power to the executive government to amend the Criminal Procedure Code was beyond the competence of the legislature and void. The Court rejected this contention, citing the majority view in In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, which supported the constitutionality of such delegation. The Court held that legislatures in India have plenary authority to delegate their power to make laws to subordinate agencies, and such delegation is constitutionally competent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that the classification of offences and the establishment of Special Courts were reasonable and justified by the need to address specific criminal activities in certain areas. The delegation of legislative power to the executive government was also deemed constitutionally valid. Consequently, the preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Court was overruled, and the appeal was set to be heard on its merits.
|
