THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ANWAR ALI SARKARHABIB

CITATION	1952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	11/01/1952
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	The State of West Bengal
RESPONDENT	Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohamed
BENCH	Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Fazal Ali, Saiyid, Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, S.R. & Aiyar, N.C. & Bose, Vivian

INTRODUCTION-

The case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar stands as a significant milestone in India’s legal landscape. This pivotal case revolved around the West Bengal Special Courts Act, the interpretation of this legislation, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the discretionary authority granted to the State government, the application of the preamble test for equality before the law, the need for expedited trials, and reasonable grounds for potential discrimination. The State of Bengal brought an appeal to the Supreme Court of India seeking to overturn the High Court of Calcutta’s decision.

The petitioner raised concerns regarding the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Special Courts Act (X of 1950), which was titled “An Act to provide for the expeditious trial of specific offenses.” The applicant challenged this act primarily on the basis of Article 14. Furthermore, section 5(1) of the act was contested on constitutional grounds, as it was argued that this section conferred arbitrary power and authority upon the state government to refer any ‘case’ or ‘class of cases’ to Special Courts without a reasonable classification. The issue also encompassed the inclusion of individual ‘cases’ alongside ‘classes of cases’.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled against the act on the grounds that it indeed vested arbitrary power in the State government. The concern was that this authority could potentially be wielded with prejudice, under the influence of emotion, or in the government’s own interests. Consequently, the act was found to violate the principles of equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

• The introduction of Special Courts in West Bengal was initiated through section 3 of the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 3 of 1949). This ordinance was subsequently replaced in March 1950 by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act X of 1950). The purpose of these courts was to expedite the trial of specific cases referred to them by the State Government.
• In a particular case, a Special Court, acting under a notification issued pursuant to section 5 of the aforementioned Act, conducted a trial. Mr. Anwar Ali and 49 others faced charges for various offenses allegedly committed during their involvement in a raid on Jessop Factory as an armed group. They were found guilty and received varying prison sentences.
• The accused individuals sought relief from the High Court under Article 226[2] of the Constitution of India, requesting the issuance of a writ of certiorari to annul their convictions and sentences. They argued that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case because section 5 of the Act was unconstitutional and void under Article 13(2)[3] of the Constitution of India, as it was believed to infringe upon the respondent’s right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article 14[4] of the Constitution of India.
• A full bench of the High Court, comprising the Chief Justice and four other judges, upheld the plea, nullifying the convictions and ordering a new trial for the respondent and the other accused individuals in accordance with the law. This decision has led to the current appeal.

ISSUES RAISED-

• Whether the West Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 was in violation of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the accused’s fundamental rights were infringed upon by the provisions of the Act?
• Whether the Act’s provisions violate the separation of powers principle?
• Whether the Act’s clauses infringed upon the right to equality before the law?
• Whether the right to a fair trial was infringed upon by the Act’s provisions.
• Whether the Act’s provisions infringed on the right to counsel?

ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES:

By the Appellant:

• If a piece of legislation has a commendable goal and serves a public purpose, as in this case where it aims to expedite the trial of certain offenses, any resulting discrimination, if unintended and in the general interest of administration, does not contravene Article 14. In other words, as long as the inequality of treatment was not specifically intended to harm any particular person or group but was for the overall benefit of the administration, it does not constitute a denial of equality before the law.

• The impugned Act introduces a classification by specifying that it is designed to facilitate the swift trial of certain offenses. In the legislature’s opinion, certain offenses may warrant speedier trials than others, making this a valid classification. Additionally, the Act grants the State Government the authority to determine which offenses necessitate expeditious trials. This state oversight, allowing changes to ensure the efficient administration of justice, is merely a regulation in the trial process and does not qualify as discriminatory or antagonistic legislation. This interpretation aligns with the Act’s stated purpose in the preamble and does not violate Article 14 of our Constitution.

• Article 14 safeguards against inequality in substantive law but not in procedural law.

• The disparities introduced in the criminal trial procedure by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, are minor in nature, and there are no significant grounds on which to claim discrimination.

By the Respondent:

• The entirety of Section 5 of the Act, or at the very least, the part allowing the State Government to instruct the Special Court to try specific “cases,” violates the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law as protected by Article 14. If Section 5 of the Act is found to be invalid, even to the limited extent mentioned, it follows that all proceedings before the Special Court, directed by the State Government to handle these particular “cases,” would have lacked jurisdiction, as determined by the High Court Full Bench. In such a case, these appeals would need to be rejected.

• The subsection itself does not contain any clear restrictions or qualifications on the State Government’s power of classification. This means that the authority granted to the State Government cannot be curtailed or altered by invoking the Act’s Preamble, as the Preamble cannot alter the straightforward language of the subsection.

• This unchecked and unguided power of classification granted to the State by Section 5(1) may be used arbitrarily or “with an evil eye and an unequal hand,” resulting in intentional, unfair discrimination against people, even when they are in similar or identical situations.

JUDGEMENT -:

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act violated Article 14 and was void. This was because it granted the government arbitrary authority to classify offenses or cases at its discretion, without the Act establishing any specific policies or guidelines for such classification. The procedure outlined by the Act for the special courts’ trials significantly deviated from the procedure used for the general trial of offenses in the criminal procedure court.

The crucial point is that the basis of classification and the purpose of the Act are distinct. What is essential is that there must be a logical connection between the grounds for classification and the objective of the Act that necessitates this classification. Legislation can only be declared discriminatory when there is no reasonable basis for a classification. For instance, the legislature can set the age at which individuals are considered capable of contracting with each other, but no one would argue that competence in contracting should depend on one’s height or hair color. Such a classification would be arbitrary.

It’s important to note that the law does not encompass administrative directives or instructions issued by the government for the guidance of its officials. Discrimination is not permissible in either substantive or procedural law.

CONCLUSION-:

In this case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Anwar Ali Sarkar, declaring the West Bengal Special Courts Act as invalid. This decision was based on the argument that the Act violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the Act granted the State Government arbitrary, uncontrolled, and unguided authority, which could be applied unreasonably and with bias, thereby undermining the principle of equal protection of laws. The Act failed to establish a reasonable classification between “cases,” “classes of cases,” “offenses,” and “classes of offenses.” Furthermore, it was established that the existing classification of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure was already reasonable, and the classification provided by the impugned Act did not meet the same standards of reasonableness. Additionally, the Code already addressed the classification of cases requiring speedy trials, making the Act unnecessary. The State Government had amended the Act, which was originally enacted in 1949, but the revisions were seen as an attempt to disregard the previous ruling regarding the arbitrary power of reference.

REFERENCES-

• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/
• https://lawtimesjournal.in/

This Article is written by Aastha Srivastava, a 3^rd Year LL.B student of DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.