Issues Involved: 1. Revocation of special leave. 2. Validity of transfer order violating Articles 14 and 21. 3. Competence of High Court Judge to try the case. 4. Right of appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Speedy trial and Article 14. 6. Heinousness of crime and applicability of Articles 14 and 21. 7. Binding precedent and per incuriam decisions. 8. Remedy for the accused without personal hearing. 9. Appointment of High Court Judge as Special Judge. 10. Liberal interpretation of Article 21. 11. Judicial discipline and reference to larger benches. 12. Effect of unconstitutional proceedings.
Summary:
1. Revocation of Special Leave: The Court considered the application for revocation of special leave but found no grounds to revoke the special leave already granted.
2. Validity of Transfer Order Violating Articles 14 and 21: The Court addressed whether an order of transfer of a criminal case, which purportedly violates Articles 14 and 21, can be questioned by an independent petition. It was noted that a review petition is not an adequate remedy as it does not allow for a personal hearing at the admission stage.
3. Competence of High Court Judge to Try the Case: The Court discussed whether a High Court Judge, who is not a Special Judge appointed u/s 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, can try the case. It was highlighted that trial by a Special Judge is a sine qua non for a trial under the Act, and a transfer order by the Supreme Court cannot substitute the appointment by the State Government.
4. Right of Appeal Under the Criminal Procedure Code: The Court examined if the accused has a remedy by way of appeal as of right under the Criminal Procedure Code. It was noted that denial of an appeal as of right might violate Articles 14 and 21.
5. Speedy Trial and Article 14: The Court considered whether transferring the case to the High Court for speedy disposal violates the principle laid down in Anwar Ali Sarkar's case, thereby resulting in a violation of Article 14.
6. Heinousness of Crime and Applicability of Articles 14 and 21: The Court questioned if the degree of heinousness of the crime or the status of the accused affects the applicability or construction of Articles 14 and 21.
7. Binding Precedent and Per Incuriam Decisions: The Court deliberated whether a decision given per incuriam, without considering appropriate legal provisions, can be treated as a binding precedent.
8. Remedy for the Accused Without Personal Hearing: The Court discussed the accused's right to raise objections to the trial without being heard personally, especially when a review petition is of a restricted character.
9. Appointment of High Court Judge as Special Judge: The Court considered if the High Court could request the State Government to appoint a High Court Judge as a Special Judge to comply with the Supreme Court's transfer order and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
10. Liberal Interpretation of Article 21: The Court noted the recent liberal interpretation of Article 21 and its applicability to persons accused of criminal offenses.
11. Judicial Discipline and Reference to Larger Benches: The Court addressed the issue of judicial discipline and the practice of smaller benches referring cases to larger benches when they disagree with earlier decisions.
12. Effect of Unconstitutional Proceedings: The Court contemplated the effect of a decision declaring the proceedings before the High Court unconstitutional on all subsequent proceedings and decisions.
The Court ultimately decided to refer the case to a larger bench of 7 Judges for further consideration, emphasizing the need for an expeditious trial and rejecting the prayer for vacating the stay.
9911796707
