1997 (3) TMI 605 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates.
2. Detention of rape victims in Remand Homes.
3. Constitutional validity of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC.
4. Implementation of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC by various states.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates:
The court examined the necessity of appointing Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates under Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC to handle the large number of petty cases clogging the regular courts. The court noted that these appointments would free up regular courts to handle more serious cases, thereby ensuring speedy justice. The court directed all state governments and the Central Government to indicate whether they had invoked these provisions and, if not, to explain the reasons. The court emphasized the importance of these appointments in reducing the burden on regular courts and ensuring the expeditious disposal of criminal cases.

2. Detention of Rape Victims in Remand Homes:
The court addressed the issue of rape victims being detained in Remand Homes for prolonged periods, as highlighted in a public interest litigation based on an article in "India Today." The article reported that nearly 150 rape victims were languishing in Remand Homes in West Bengal. The court noted that the detention of these victims was a result of delays in the trial of the accused. The court directed the state to take immediate steps to release these victims and ensure their safe custody while also expediting the trial process to prevent such prolonged detentions in the future.

3. Constitutional Validity of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC:
The court examined the constitutional validity of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC, which had been challenged as unconstitutional by the High Court of Madras. The High Court had declared these sections unconstitutional, stating that the classification of appointees as persons holding or having held any post under the government was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the provisions allowed the High Court to appoint qualified and experienced individuals, including retired judicial officers and government servants, to serve as Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates. The court emphasized that these appointments were intended to be short-term and serve as a social obligation rather than regular employment.

4. Implementation of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC by Various States:
The court reviewed the responses from various states regarding the implementation of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC. The court noted that some states had taken steps to appoint Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates, while others had not. The court directed states that had not yet invoked these provisions to do so within a month and instructed the High Courts to determine the number of such magistrates needed and make the necessary appointments. The court also emphasized the importance of ensuring that regular magistrates, once relieved of petty cases, focus on disposing of more serious cases promptly.

Conclusion:
The court concluded by issuing specific directions to the states and High Courts to ensure the effective implementation of Sections 13 and 18 of the CrPC. The court also directed the respondent states to pay costs to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and disposed of both writ petitions accordingly.