9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 18 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 18 under Article 14: The primary issue before the Court was whether Section 18 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents argued that Section 18 discriminates against individuals by allowing proceedings under this section without first being prosecuted under Sections 3 or 7, which would afford them a regular trial and the right to appeal. The Court examined the provisions of Sections 3, 7, and 18 of the Act. Section 3 pertains to the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, while Section 7 deals with the punishment for prostitution in or near public places. Section 18 allows a magistrate to issue notices for the attachment of premises used as brothels or for prostitution within 200 yards of public places, based on police reports or other information. The respondents contended that the requirements for taking action under Section 18 are identical to those under Section 7, leading to potential discrimination. The High Court had earlier held that "whenever action is taken under Section 18 independently of Section 7, it would offend Article 14 of the Constitution." The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind these sections, noting that Section 18 is a preventive measure aimed at minimizing the chances of brothels being run or prostitution being carried on near public places. The Court emphasized that proceedings under Section 18 are summary in nature and not equivalent to prosecutions under Sections 3 or 7, which involve regular trials and the right to appeal. The Court held that Sections 3 and 7 deal with individuals guilty of offenses, whereas Section 18 deals with the premises used for such activities. The facts required to be proved under Sections 3 and 7 involve establishing intention or knowledge, which are not necessary under Section 18. Therefore, the classification between proceedings under Section 18 and prosecutions under Sections 3 or 7 is reasonable and has a substantial relationship with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 2. Procedural Requirements and Discrimination: The respondents also argued that the procedural differences between prosecutions under Sections 3 and 7 and proceedings under Section 18 amount to discrimination under Article 14. They pointed out that under Sections 3 and 7, individuals have the benefit of a regular trial, the ability to cross-examine witnesses, present defense evidence, and appeal if convicted. In contrast, under Section 18, individuals only have the right to a hearing, and the scope of this hearing is not clearly defined. The Court acknowledged that while every classification might produce some inequality, mere inequality is not sufficient to challenge the constitutionality of a law. The inequality must result from an arbitrary action by the State. Reasonable classification is permissible if it is based on substantial distinctions relevant to the law's objective. The Court found that Section 18 provides for two distinct classes of cases: those falling under both Sections 3 or 7 and Section 18, and those falling only under Section 18. This classification is reasonable and related to the Act's purpose, thereby not violating Article 14. 3. Requirement for Initial Prosecution under Sections 3 or 7: The Court concluded that in cases where the police reports disclose offenses under Section 3, the magistrate must first proceed under the penal provisions of Sections 3 or 7 before taking action under Section 18. This ensures that individuals are not deprived of a regular trial and the right to appeal. The Court emphasized that the magistrate, being a court as per Section 22, must take cognizance of any cognizable offense under Section 190(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The magistrate has no discretion to ignore such offenses, and failure to do so would violate Article 14. The Court also noted that only officers mentioned in Section 13 can investigate offenses under the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of the Punjab High Court but on different grounds. The Court held that the proceedings taken by the magistrate under Section 18 without first taking action under Section 3 were not in accordance with law. The magistrate must first prosecute under Sections 3 or 7 before proceeding under Section 18. The appeals were dismissed, but the magistrate was allowed to take fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
|
