KATHI RANING RAWAT v. THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA

1952 AIR 123, 1952 SCR 435

BACKGROUND

The State Government introduced a special court under Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance 1949. The special court followed a special treatment where the appellant raised a question on discrimination of offences and its treatment. The jurisdiction of the criminal court raised questions before the special court and later judgment was given by the Apex court of India.

FACTS

The State of Saurashtra (now known as State of Gujarat) passed an ordinance called Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance in the year 1948. The Preamble was empowered to deal with public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of  peace and tranquillity within the State of Saurashtra by constituting special courts of criminal jurisdiction. 

With the increase in public offences ( such as dacoity and murder ) the government introduced an amendment in 1949, thereby introducing section 9, 10 and 11 which gave the government the power to constitute special courts through a notification in the official gazette. Moreover, neither the procedures were not mandatory under any criminal procedures.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 (Punishment for Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and 392 (Punishment for Robbery) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 491 (Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants to helpless person) and Section 526 of The Code of Criminal Procedure will not apply to any person tried by the Special Judge and High Court is having power to act according to Section 423 (Warrant to levy of fine issued by the court in any territory to which the code does not extend), Section 426 (Sentence on escaped convict when to take effect), Section 427 (Sentence of offender already sentenced for another offence), and Section 428 (Period for detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment) of the code.

Therefore the appeal raised question under Article 14 of The Indian Constitution similar to those dealt with the Criminal Appeal.

ISSUES

•  Whether the notified law is excessive delegated legislation?

• Whether Article 13(1) of The Indian Constitution declares the challenged law unconstitutional?

• Whether the impugned Ordinance i.e the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949 discriminatory and void under Article 14 of The Indian Constitution?

ARGUMENT

•  APPELLANT

• Section-11 of Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance and the notification are discriminatory as the procedures to be followed by the courts and jurisdiction varies.

• Excessive delegation to executive government that was beyond the legislative competence and void under Article 13(1) of The Indian Constitution.

• Violation of Article 14 of The Indian Constitution.

•  RESPONDENT

• The special procedure of the court satisfies the conditions of Article 21 of The Indian Constitution and thus cannot be held to be unconstitutional (for the purpose of personal liberty).

• The offences of dacoity, robbery, and murder, etc in certain areas which specifies special courts to maintain peace and security of the state.

JUDGMENT

The Saurashtra Government did not referred individual cases but offences of certain kinds and hence it would not be called as discrimination. The power of the state government to constitute different courts with different procedure. It notifies ordinance lack disputed features and did not take the revision powers of the hon’ble court.

The appellant was punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which is heinous in nature and cannot be given equal culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The classification which was not made against a particular person or any particular class and thus which cannot be held to be discrimination. Therefore, in the consonance with The Indian Constitution, special treatment leads to speedy trials.

Discrimination involves biasness, the equal protection claims reasonableness and justification under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. When the case is being filed at the same time Article 14 of The Indian Constitution should be examined to conclude whether the same is reasonable or not.

The unambiguity of the legislative policy and definite effective methods of carrying out the policies which gave discretion upon the body of administrators or the officers to make application of law to a person or group of persons then, the piece of legislation cannot be considered as discriminatory legislation.

Though the classification does not seem to be discriminatory and biased, similarly Section 11 of impugned ordinance are unconstitutional and hence the conviction by the special judges. 

CONCLUSION 

The above case specifies about the special treatment of certain offences the purpose of which was to implement speedy trials and to ensure security of the state and maintain public order. Thus special courts having jurisdiction to deal with offences were established and there is no delegated legislation.

REFERENCE

• https://indiankanoon.org
• https://main.sci.gov
• http://www.airinfotech.in/

This Article is written by Sakshi A Mirgal of B.C.Thakur college of Law, New Panvel (University of Mumbai), Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin