9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Central Act. 2. Validity of Provisions of the Central Act. 3. Validity of Provisions of the State Act. 4. Directions Issued by the Gauhati High Court. Summary: 1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Central Act: The Supreme Court held that Parliament was competent to enact the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (Central Act) under Entry 2 of List I and Article 248 read with Entry 97 of List I. Post the Forty-Second Amendment, the legislative power flows from Entry 2A of List I. The Act is not a law for maintaining public order falling under Entry 1 of List II. The expression "in aid of the civil power" implies that the armed forces operate in cooperation with the civil administration, not supplanting it. 2. Validity of Provisions of the Central Act: The Court found that Section 3 of the Central Act does not confer arbitrary power to declare an area as "disturbed" and must be periodically reviewed before the expiry of six months. The power to declare an area as disturbed can be exercised by the Governor, Administrator, or Central Government. Sections 4 and 5, which confer powers on officers of the armed forces, were upheld, noting that these powers must be exercised with minimal force and in compliance with legal safeguards. Section 6, which provides protection against prosecution without Central Government sanction, was also upheld, provided the order granting or refusing sanction is reasoned. 3. Validity of Provisions of the State Act: The provisions of Sections 3 to 6 of the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955 (State Act) were upheld, except for the words "or any officer of the Assam Rifles not below the rank of Havildar/Jamadar" in Sections 4 and 5, which were struck down as Assam Rifles are part of the armed forces of the Union. The State Act was found to be in pith and substance a law for maintaining public order under Entry 1 of List II, and not repugnant to the Central legislation like Cr.P.C. or the Arms Act. 4. Directions Issued by the Gauhati High Court: The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court's directions that limited the application of notifications declaring disturbed areas to specific districts and required monthly reviews. The Court emphasized that periodic reviews should occur every six months. The direction to issue instructions for handling arrested persons was upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Central Act and the State Act with certain modifications and clarifications, ensuring that the powers conferred are exercised with due safeguards and periodic reviews. The appeals against the Gauhati High Court's judgment were allowed to the extent indicated, while the appeals against the Delhi High Court's judgment were dismissed.
|
