9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952. 2. Vires of the proviso to Section 4(1) of the West Bengal Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952. 3. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vires of Section 2(b): The appellants challenged the vires of Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, arguing that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Section 2(b) defines a "disturbed area" as an area where, in the opinion of the State Government, there was or is any extensive disturbance of public peace and tranquility, and a notification declaring such area to be a disturbed area can be issued. The appellants contended that this provision allowed for retrospective application, leading to discrimination between individuals whose trials had been concluded before the notification and those whose trials had not. The Court examined whether this classification was rational and had a reasonable nexus with the object of the Act, which was to provide for the speedy trial of offences in disturbed areas to maintain public peace and security. The Court found that the classification was reasonable and the differentiation had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. Therefore, Section 2(b) was held to be intra vires. 2. Vires of the Proviso to Section 4(1): The appellants also challenged the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act, which allows the tribunal to try any offence other than a scheduled offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial. The appellants argued that this proviso was ultra vires as it led to discrimination. The Court, however, found that the proviso merely enabled the tribunal to try minor or allied offences along with the major scheduled offences, which was consistent with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proviso was found to be within the legislative competence and did not violate Article 14. Therefore, the challenge to the proviso to Section 4(1) was dismissed. 3. Alleged Violation of Article 14: The primary ground for challenging the vires of the impugned provisions was that they violated the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, which ensures equality before the law and prohibits class legislation. The Court reiterated that Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable classification if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The Court examined the scheme of the Act and found that the classification of offences and the differentiation between offenders in disturbed areas and those in undisturbed areas were rational and had a direct nexus with the object of maintaining public peace and security. The Court held that the Act did not violate Article 14 as the classification was reasonable and the differentiation was justified. Separate Judgment: One judge dissented, holding that Section 2(b) was unconstitutional as it allowed for retrospective application, leading to discrimination between individuals whose trials had been concluded before the notification and those whose trials had not. The dissenting judge argued that this classification did not have a reasonable relation to the object of the Act and thus violated Article 14. Conclusion: The majority judgment confirmed the order passed by the High Court, holding that the impugned provisions of the West Bengal Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1952, were intra vires and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, and it was emphasized that the case against the appellants should be tried and disposed of expeditiously, considering the offences were alleged to have been committed more than ten years ago.
|
