9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Validity of the notification dated 30-4-1997 by the State Government. 3. Legality of the notification dated 5-2-1999 by the Central Government. 4. Locus standi of the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu. 5. Validity of the Writ Petition by Shri M.A. Chinnaswamy. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The appellants challenged Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arguing that it confers unguided and arbitrary discretion on the Government to appoint Special Judges "for such case or group of cases," violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the object and scheme of the Act provide sufficient guidelines for exercising the power under Section 3. The Court found that the discretion conferred upon the Government is not unfettered or unguided, and thus, Section 3 is constitutionally valid. Issue 2: Validity of the Notification dated 30-4-1997 by the State Government The notification dated 30-4-1997 established three additional Courts in Chennai and appointed Special Judges to try cases exclusively on a day-to-day basis under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellants argued that this was done with mala fide intentions to target political opponents. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, agreeing with the High Court that the material on record justified the establishment of additional Courts and that the allegations of mala fide were vague and unsubstantiated. The Court found that the notification was issued after due consultation with the High Court and was not violative of Articles 14, 21, and 235 of the Constitution. Issue 3: Legality of the Notification dated 5-2-1999 by the Central Government The Central Government issued a notification on 5-2-1999, appointing additional Special Judges for Chennai, arguing that it had the exclusive power to specify which cases shall be tried by which Special Judge when there are more Special Judges than one for any area. The Supreme Court held that the Central Government failed to establish the necessity for issuing the notification and that it was uncalled for at that stage. Therefore, the notification dated 5-2-1999 was quashed and set aside. Issue 4: Locus Standi of the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition challenging the notification dated 5-2-1999 issued by the Central Government. The respondents questioned his locus standi, arguing that he filed the petition not in his personal capacity but as the Advocate General, without authorization from the State Government. The Supreme Court did not entertain the writ petition filed by the Advocate General but permitted him to assist the Court as an intervenor. Issue 5: Validity of the Writ Petition by Shri M.A. Chinnaswamy The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri M.A. Chinnaswamy, stating that it did not deserve to be entertained. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the notification dated 30-4-1997 by the State Government. However, the Court allowed the appeal filed by VOICE, quashing the notification dated 5-2-1999 issued by the Central Government. The writ petitions filed by the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and Shri M.A. Chinnaswamy were disposed of accordingly.
|
