| Case Name: Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra |
| Equivalent Citation: AIR 1952 SC 120 |
| Date of Judgement: 27/02/1952 |
| Court: Supreme Court of India |
| Appellants: Kathi Raning Rawat |
| Respondent: State of Saurashtra |
| Bench: ● SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) ● FAZAL ALI, SAIYID ● MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND ● MUKHERJEA, B.K. ● DAS, SUDHI RANJAN ● AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA ● BOSE, VIVIAN |
FACT OF THE CASE
● A special court found Kathi Raning Rawat, the appellant, guilty of murder, attempted murder, and robbery under sections 302, 307, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
● The special court was comprised by the Province of Saurashtra under area 11 of the Saurashtra Safety Measures Ordinance, 1948, which was revised by the third correction in 1949 ● The ordinance gave the state government the authority to establish special courts for specific crimes and set different rules for them, like no jury trial, no inquiry before sessions, no commitment proceedings, and no transfer of cases.
● The appellant argued that the ordinance’s legality and the special court’s jurisdiction were invalid because they were in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal legal protection.
● The litigant fought that the law made an inconsistent and outlandish characterization of offences and wrongdoers and that there was no reasonable nexus between the arrangement and the object of the law, which was to manage public security and support the public request.
● The State of Saurashtra, the respondent, argued that the ordinance and the special court were based on a reasonable classification that had a rational connection to the ordinance’s goal, which was to deal with the grave situation caused by dacoity and murder in the state.
● The respondent also argued that the ordinance’s special procedures were necessary to expedite case resolution and deter crime and that they did not affect the fairness or impartiality of the trial. ● Using the criteria of reasonable classification and rational nexus, the Supreme Court upheld the ordinance’s validity and the special court’s jurisdiction.
● The state government had sufficient grounds, according to the Supreme Court, to classify some offences as more serious and dangerous than others and to provide for their expedited trial by different special courts.
● The classification and the objective of the ordinance, which was to deal with public safety and the maintenance of public order in a disturbed area, were also held to have a rational nexus by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether or not the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance of 1948 and its third amendment in 1949, which gave the state government the authority to set up special courts for certain crimes, were in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which says that everyone is entitled to equal protection from the law and equality before the law.
2. Whether Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution of 1949 declares the challenged law unconstitutional?
CONTENTION OF APPELLANT
1. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, the challenged law was unconstitutional because it violated Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal legal protection to all individuals.
2. The disputed law established a classification of offenses and individuals that was unreasonable and arbitrary. It also granted the state government complete discretion to select the offenses and individuals to be tried by special courts, which followed a different procedure than regular criminal courts and denied the accused certain protections and rights.
3. Because it granted the state government broad and ambiguous powers to amend the Criminal Procedure Code and to establish special courts without any guidance or principle, the challenged law was the result of excessive delegated legislation.
4. The upbraided regulation was biased in its impact and activity, as it singled out specific offenses and people for differential treatment with no judicious premise or nexus with the object of the law.
5. Because it prescribed a procedure that was not fair, just, or reasonable for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty, the challenged law violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
6. The decried regulation disregarded Article 22 of the Constitution, which gave specific shields against capture and detainment, as it excluded the application of sections 491 and 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which engaged the High Court to give writs of habeas corpus and to move cases starting with one court then onto the next.
7. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution of 1949, the disputed ordinance’s sections 9 and 11 grant the government authority to amend section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is an excessive delegation of authority that was beyond the legislative authority of the government and is therefore null and void.
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT
1. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, the challenged law was not unconstitutional because it did not violate Article 14, which allowed classification for legislative purposes as long as it was based on some intelligible differentia that had a rational relation to the goal of the legislation.
2. The disputed law established a valid and reasonable classification of offenses and individuals, and it gave the state government broad discretion over which offenses and individuals would be tried by special courts. These courts were established to address the grave situation of public safety and order in the state, which necessitated swift and effective prosecutions of certain heinous and violent offenses.
3. The contested law was not the result of overly delegated legislation because it only gave the state government permission to carry out the law’s policy and purpose within certain limits and conditions. It did not give the state government any arbitrary or uncontrolled powers.
4. The denounced regulation was not unfair in its impact and activity, as it singled out no specific individual or class for differential treatment, yet applied consistently to all people who committed specific offenses in specific regions that were impacted by rebellion and confusion.
5. Because it prescribed a procedure that was established by law and that was fair, just, and reasonable for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty, the challenged law did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
6. Because it dealt with punitive detention following a conviction by a competent court rather than preventive detention, the challenged law did not violate Article 22 of the Constitution, which provided certain safeguards against arrest and detention. In addition, neither the right to appeal to the High Court within a predetermined time period nor the High Court’s revision powers were affected.
JUDGEMENT
The appellant’s appeal was denied by the Supreme Court, which also upheld the special court’s conviction and sentence under the challenged law. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, the court determined that the challenged law was not unconstitutional because it did not violate Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal legal protection to all individuals. The court made the observation that as long as the classification was based on some intelligible differentia that had a rational relation to the goal that the legislation was trying to achieve, Article 14 did not prohibit classification for legislative purposes. The court additionally held that the upbraided regulation made a legitimate and sensible characterization of offenses and people, and gave the state government directed tact to choose the offenses and the denounced people to be attempted by the extraordinary courts, which were comprised to manage what is happening of public request and wellbeing in the state, which required quick and powerful preliminaries of specific shocking and fierce offenses. The court also decided that the special courts were parallel and coordinated courts with exclusive jurisdiction over particular offenses, not inferior or subordinate to the regular criminal courts. The court also decided that the different procedure used by the special courts did not make it less likely that the accused would get a fair and impartial trial, and that the disputed law gave them enough protections and rights.
The court also pointed out that the challenged law was only temporary and provisional, and that the legislature or the constitutional authority could review and change it. The court also said that other states and the federal government had passed similar laws to deal with sudden threats to public safety and order. The court likewise recognized this case from the instance of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,
where it had struck down a comparable regulation on the ground of violation of Article 14. The court explained that while there was a clear basis and justification for the classification that was made by the challenged law, there was no discernible differentia or rational nexus between the classification made by the legislation and its object in that case. In this case, however, there was.
The appellant’s other arguments that the challenged law violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which protect life, liberty, and certain safeguards against arrest and detention, were also rejected by the court. The court decided that as long as the procedure was fair, just, and reasonable, no law that specified a procedure established by law for depriving a person of his life or personal liberty violated Article 21. Since this case involved punitive detention following a conviction by a competent court, the court determined that Article 22 did not apply to it.
CONCLUSION
The case ended with the Supreme Court rejecting the appellant’s appeal and upholding the special court’s conviction and sentence under the challenged law. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, the court determined that the challenged law was not unconstitutional because it did not violate Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal legal protection to all individuals. The court made the observation that as long as the classification was based on some intelligible differentia that had a rational relation to the goal that the legislation was trying to achieve, Article 14 did not prohibit classification for legislative purposes. The court additionally held that the upbraided regulation made a legitimate and sensible characterization of offenses and people, and gave the state government directed tact to choose the offenses and the denounced people to be attempted by the extraordinary courts, which were comprised to manage what is happening of public request and wellbeing in the state, which required quick and powerful preliminaries of specific shocking and fierce offenses.
The case is an important case since it set out the standards and tests for deciding the legitimacy of order for administrative purposes under Article 14 of the Constitution. The case also clarified the scope and meaning of Article 13(1), which stated that, to the extent that they were incompatible with Part III of the Constitution, all laws in effect prior to the commencement of the Constitution shall be void. The case likewise separated itself from a past instance of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, where a comparable regulation was struck all the way down of infringement of Article 14. In addition, the case upheld the state’s authority to enact special laws and establish special courts in times of emergency and lawlessness to maintain public safety and order.
written by Sahitya Shukla intern under legal vidhiya.
0 Comments