http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 38  

PETITIONER: NAGA PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT, OF HUMAN RIGHTS ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1997

BENCH: CJI, M.M. PUNCHHI, S.C. AGARWAL, A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                  Hon’ble the Chief Justice                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal                  Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand                  Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha Ashok  H.   Desai,   Attorney   M.S.Usgaouncar,   Additional Solicitor General,  Kapil Sibal,  Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Indra Jaising,  Prashant   K.  Goswami,   Shanti   Bhushan,   S.N. Choudhary, Dr.  Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advs.,  S.R. Bhat, Rakesh Shukla, MS.  Neeru Vaid,  Lalit Mohan  Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Hetu  Arora, Ms.  Anita Shenoy,  Ms. Anita  George, P.H. Parekh, N.K.  Sahoo, Ms.  Deepa, Pravir  Choudhary, Ms. Renu George, M.K.  Giri, Dr.  S.C. Jain,  Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Anu Bindra, Krishnan  Venugopal, Shakil  Ahmed Syed, S.K. Nandi, Ranjan Mukherjee,  Kailash Vasdev,  C.K. Sasi,  Sunil  Kumar Jain, Vijay  Hansaria, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Navin Prakash, ms. S.Janani,  S. k.  Bhattacharya, R.S.  Sodhi, Advs.  with them for the appearing parties.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:                             WITH WRIT PETITIONS  NOS. (C)  NOS.  5328/80,  ,9229-30/82  CIVIL APPEALS NOS.  721/85, 722/85,  723/85,  724/85,  2173-76/91, 2551/91 AND WRIT PETITIONS (C) NOS. 13644-45/84 S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:      These writ petitions and appeals raise common questions relating to  the  validity  of  the  Armed  Forces  (Special Powers)  Act,   1958  (as  amended)  enacted  by  Parliament (hereinafter referred to as ’the Central Act’) and the Assam Disturbed Areas  Act, 1955  enacted by the State Legislature of Assam. (hereinafter referred to as ’the State Act’).      The Central  Act was  enacted in 1958 to enable Certain special powers to be conferred upon the members of the armed forces in  the disturbed areas in the State of Assam and the Union Territory  of Manipur.  By Act 7 of 1972 and Act 69 of 1986 the Central Act was amended and it extends to the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalya, Mizoram, Nagaland  and Tripura.  The  expression  "disturbed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 38  

area" has  been defined  in Section  12(b) to  mean an  area which is  for the  time being declared by notification under section 3  to be a disturbed area. Section 3 makes provision for issuance  of a  notification declaring  the whole or any part of  State or  Union  Territory  to  which  the  Act  is applicable to be a disturbed area. In the said provision, as originally enacted,  the power to issue the notification was only  conferred   on  the  Governor  of  the  State  or  the Administrator of  the Union  Territory. By the Amendment Act of 1972  power  to  issue  a  notification  under  the  said provision can  also be  exercised by the Central Government. Under Section  4 a  commissioned officer,  warrant  officer, non-commissioned officer  or any  other person of equivalent rank in  the armed  forces has been conferred special powers in the  disturbed areas  in respect  of matters specified (n clauses (a)  to (d)  of the  said section. Section 5 imposes requirement that a person arrested in exercise of the powers conferred under  the Act  must be handed over to the officer incharge of  the nearest  police  station  together  with  a report of  the circumstances occasioning the arrest. Section 6 confers  protection to  persons acting  under the  Act and provides that no prosecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be  instituted, except  with the  previous sanction of the Central  Government, against  any person  in respect  of anything done  or purported  to be  done in  exercise of the powers conferred by the act.      The state  Act was  enacted with  a view to make better provision  for   the  suppression   of  dis-order   and  for restoration and maintenance of public order in the disturbed areas in  Assam. Section  2 of  the Stat  Act  also  defines disturbed area  to mean  an area which is for the time being declared by  notification under  Section 3 to be a disturbed area. Section  3 days down that the State Government may, by notification in  the official  gazette of Assam, declare the whole or  any part  of any  district of  Assam,  as  may  be specified in  the notification,  to  be  a  disturbed  area. Sections 4  and 5  confer on  a Magistrate or police officer not below  the rank  of sub-Inspector or Havildar in case of Armed Branch of the police r any officer of the Assam Rifles not below  the rank  of Havildar/Jamadar  powers similar  to those conferred  under clauses  (a) and  (b) of Section 4 of the Central  Act. Section  6 confers  protection similar  to that conferred by Section 5 of the Central Act.      C.A. Nos.  721-724  of  1985  arise  out  of  the  writ petitions [Civil  Rule Nos.  182 of 1980,192 of 1980 and 203 of 1980] filed in the Gauhati High Court.      In Civil  Rule Nos.182  of 1980  and 192  of  1980  the validity of  the Central  Act as  well as the State Act. and the notifications dated April 5, 1980 Issued thereunder were challenged,  while  in  civil  Rule  No.  203  of  1980  the proclamation dated  December 14,1979 issued by the President under Article  356 the Constitution and the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980 were challenged. In Civil Rule No. 182 of  1980 a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an ex-parte  order  staying  the  notification  dated  April 5,1980 issued  by the  Government of Assam under the Central Act. An  appeal was  filed against  the said  order  of  the learned Single  Judge before  the Division Bench of the High Court. All  these three  Civil Writ petitions and the appeal were transferred  to the  Delhi High Court by this Court and were registered  as Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 832-34 of 1980 and L.P.A.  No. 108  of 1990  in the  Delhi High  Court. All these matters  were disposed  of by  a Division Bench of the said High  Court by  judgment dated  June 3,1983.  The  High Court has observed that in C.W.P. No. 834/80 [Civil Rule No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 38  

203 of  1980] the challenge was to the validity of the Assam prevention  Detention   Ordinance,  1980,   which  had  been replaced by  Assam Preventive  Detention Act,  1980 and  the validity of  the said  Act had not been challenged. The said Writ petition  was, therefore,  dismissed on the ground that it will be an exercise in futility to deal with the vires of the Ordinance.  As regards  L.P.A. No.  108 of  1980 it  was observed  that  since  the  main  Writ  petition  was  being disposed of  on merits,  the said  decision would govern the L.P.A. The High Court has examined Civil Writ petitions Nos. 832-33 of  1980 on  merits. The  High Court  has upheld  the validity of the Central Act and has held that parliament was competent to  enact the Central Act in exercise of statutory power conferred  under Entries  1 and  2 of List I read with Article 246  of the  Constitution. The  High Court  has also held that  the provisions  of the Central Act cannot be held to  be   violative  of   Articles  14,19   and  21   of  the Constitution. As  regards the  State Act  the High Court has held that  the Assam  Rifles is  a part  and parcel of other armed forces  of Union  of India as postulated in Entry 2 of List 1  of the  Constitution and  the State  Legislature  of Assam could  not legislate  with  regard  to  Assam  Rifles. Sections 4 and 5 of the State Act, to the extent they confer certain powers  on the  personnel of Assam Rifles, have been held to  be  beyond  the  legislative  power  of  the  State legislature and  the words  " or  any officer  of the  Assam Rifles not  below the rank of Havildar" in Section 4 and the words "or any officer of the Assam Rifles not below the rank of Jamadar"  in Section  5 of the State Act have been struck down and  rest of  the provisions of the State Act have been upheld. The  declarations issued by the Governor Assam under Section 3  of the Central Act and Section 3 of the State Act have also  been upheld by the Act. Civil Appeals Nos. 721-24 of 1985  have been  filed by  the petitioners  in  the  writ petitions against the said judgment of the Delhi High Court. The State  of Assam  has not  filed any  appeal against  the decision of  the High Court striking down the aforementioned words in Sections 4 and 5 of the State Act.      Civil Rule  Nos. 2314,2238  and 2415  of 1990 and Civil Rule No.  11 of  1991 were  filed in  the Gauhati High Court wherein proclamation  dated November  27,1990 promulgated by the  Government   of  India   under  Article   356  of   the Constitution as  well as  declaration dated November 27,1990 issued under  Section 3  of the  Central Act and declaration dated December  7,1990 issued  under Section  3 of the State Act were challenged. In these writ petitions the Validity of the  Central   Act  as  well  as  the  State  Act  was  also challenged. All  these Writ  petitions were disposed of by a Division Bench  of the  Gauhati High Court by Judgment dated March 20,1991.  Since the  proclamation dated  November  27, 1990 issued  under Article  356 of the Constitution of India had expired  during the  pendency of  the Writ petitions the High Court  observed that  the relief  sought in that regard had become  infructuous. The  High Court  has held  that the questions regarding  the validity of the Central Act and the State Act  were concluded  by the  earlier Judgment  of  the Delhi High  Court and  the same  cannot be  reopened. Taking note of the report of the Governor of Assam to the president of India  which led to the proclamation Under Article 356 of the Constitution  the High Court has held that  only some of the districts in the state of Assam as mentioned in the said report could  be declared as disturbed areas. The High Court has, therefore,  directed that  notification dated  November 27,1990 issued  under the Central Act and notification dated December  7,1990   issued  under   the   Central   Act   and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 38  

notification dated  December 7,1990  issued under  the State Act  shall  apply  only  in  respect  of  the  districts  of Dibrugarh,  Tinsukia,  Sibsagar,  Jorhat,  Nagaon,  Dhemaji, Lakhimpur Sonitpur, Darrang, Nalbari Barpeta and the city of the  Gauhati  and  shall  not  apply  in  the  districts  of Golaghat, Morigaon, Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Bongalgaon, Goalpara, Kamrup (except  the city  of Gauhati),  Karbi Anglong, North Cachar Hills,  Cachar, Karimganj  and Hailakandi.  The  High Court has  also directed  the Central  Government under  the Central Act  and the State Government under the State Act to review every  calendar month  whether the  two notifications are necessary  to be  continued. The  High  Court  has  also directed that  legal points decided by the High Court in the earlier decisions in Nungshi Tombi Devi V. Rishang Keishang, 1982(1) GLR  756, and  The Civil  Liberties and Human Rights Organisations (CLAHRO)  V.   P.K. Kukrety, 1988 (2) GLR 137, be made  known to  Commissioned  officers,  Non-commissioned Officers, warrant  Officers and  Havildars and  has  further directed the  Central Government  and Government of Assam to issue the  following instructions  to  the  above  mentioned officers:-      (a)  Any  person  arrested  by  the      armed forces  or other armed forces      of the  Union shall  be handed over      to the  nearest police station with      least   possible   delay   and   be      produced   before    the    nearest      magistrate within 24 hours from the      time of arrest.      (b)  A   person  who   either   had      committed a  cognizable or  against      whom  reasonable  suspicion  exists      such  persons   alone  are   to  be      arrested, innocent  persons are not      to be  arrested and later to give a      clean chit  to  them  as  is  being      ’white’.      Civil Appeals  Nos. 2173--76 of 1991 have been filed by the Union of India, the State of Assam and other respondents in the  writ petition  against  the  said  judgment  of  the Gauhati High  Court dated March 20, 1991 in Civil Rules Nos. 2314, 2238 & 2415 of 1990. Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 1991 has been filed  by the  petitioner in  Civil Rule No. 11 of 1991 against the said judgment. The appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 1991 has died and the said appeal has abated.      In the  Writ petitions  filed under  Article 32  of the Constitution the  validity of  the Central Act and the State Act as  well as the notifications issued the said enactments declaring disturbed  areas in  the States  of Assam, Manipur and Tripura  have been  challenged. In  these writ petitions allegations have  been made  regarding infringement of human rights by  personnel of  armed forces  in  exercise  of  the powers conferred  by  the  Central  Act.  The  notifications regarding declaration  of disturbed  areas  have  ceased  to operate. The allegations involving infringement of rights by personnel of armed forces have been inquired into and action has been  taken against  the persons found to be responsible for such  infringements. The only question that survives for consideration in  these Writ petitions is about the validity of the provisions of the Central Act and State Act.      We have heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Shri Kapil  Sabil on  behalf of  the petitioners in the writ petitions and  in the  civil appeals we have heard Shri P.K. Goswami on  behalf of  the petitioners in the writ petitions filed in  the High  Court. The  learned Attorney General has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 38  

addressed the  Court on  behalf of  the Union  of India. The National Human  Rights  Commission  has  been  permitted  to intervene and  Shri Rajiv  Dhavan has addressed the Court on its behalf.      As noticed  earlier, the  provisions contained  in  the State Act  are also  found in the Central Act which contains certain  additional   provisions.  The  Submissions  on  the Validity of  the provisions  of the  Central Act would cover the challenge  to the  validity of  the State Act. We would, therefore, first  deal with  the questions  relating to  the validity of  the Central  Act. But  before we  do so we will briefly take note of the earlier legislation in the field.      The Police  Act of  1861, in  sub-section  (1)  of  15, empowers  the  state  Government  to  issue  a  proclamation declaring that  any area  subject to  its authority has been fond in a disturbed or in a dangerous state and thereupon in exercise of  the power  conferred under  sub-section (2) the Inspector General  of Police  or other officer authorised by the State  Government in  that behalf  can employ and police force in  addition to  the ordinary  fixed complement, to be quartered in  the area  specified in such proclamation. Sub- section(6)  of   Section  15   prescribes  that  every  such proclamation issued under sub-section (1) shall indicate the period for  which it  is to  remain in  force, but it may be withdrawn at  any time  or continued from time to time for a further period  or periods  as the  State Government  may in each case  think fit  to direct.  The police  Act  makes  no provision for deployment of armed forces.      To deal with the situation arising in certain provinces on account  of the  partition of  the country  in  1947  the Governor General  issued four  Ordinances, namely,  (1)  The Bengal Disturbed  Areas (Special  Powers  of  Armed  forces) Ordinance, 1947 ( 11 of 1947); (2) The Assam Disturbed Areas (Special Powers  of Armed  Forces) Ordinance,  1947  (14  of 1947);  (3)  The  East  Punjab  and  Delhi  Disturbed  Areas (Special Powers  of Armed  Forces) Ordinance,  1947  (22  of 1947). these  Ordinances were  replaced by  the Armed Forces (Special Powers)  Act, 1948  (Act No. 3 of 1948). Sections 2 and 3 of the said Act provided as follows:-      "section  2.   Special  powers   of      officers   of   military   or   air      forces.- Any  commissioned officer,      warrant officer or non-commissioned      officer of  His Majesty’s  Military      or air  forces may,  in any area in      respect  of  which  a  proclamation      under Sub-section (1) of Section 15      of the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861)      is for  the time  being in force or      which is  for the time being by any      form  of   words  declared  by  the      provincial  Government   under  any      other  law   to  be   disturbed  or      dangerous areas,-      (a)  If   in  his   opinion  it  is      necessary  so   to   do   for   the      maintenance of  public order, after      giving such  warning, if any, as he      may consider  necessary, fire  upon      or otherwise use force, even to the      causing  of   death,  against   any      person    who    is    acting    in      contravention of  any law  or order      for the  time being in force in the      said area  prohibiting the assembly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 38  

    of five  or  more  persons  or  the      carrying of  weapons or  of  things      capable of being used as weapons;      (b)  arrest   without  warrant  any      person   who    has   committed   a      cognizable offence, or against whom      a reasonable  suspicion exists that      he has  committed or  is  about  to      commit a cognizable offence;      (c)  enter   and  search,   without      warrant, any  premises to  make any      such arrest  as  aforesaid,  or  to      recover any  person believed  to be      wrongfully restrained  or confined,      or    any    property    reasonably      suspected to be stolen property, or      any arms  believed to be unlawfully      kept, in such premises.      Section 3.  Protection  of  persons      acting under this Act,-      No prosecution, suit or other legal      proceeding  shall   be  instituted,      except with  the previous  sanction      of the  Central Government, against      any person  in respect  of anything      done or  purporting to  be done  in      exercise of the powers conferred by      Section 2."      This Act  was a  temporary statute enacted for a period of one year. It was, however, continued till it was repealed by Act 36 of 197.      Thereafter the  Central Act  was enacted by Parliament. it was  known as  the Armed  Forces  [Assam  and  Manipur  ] Special powers Act, 1958 and it extended to the whole of the State of  Assam and  the Union  Territory of  Manipur. As  a result of the amendments made therein it is now described as the Armed  Forces [Special  Powers] Act, 1958 and it extends to the  whole of  the  Stat  of  Arunachal  Pradesh,  Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya,  Mizoram, Nagaland  and  Tripura.  Under Section 3  of the  Act as  originally enacted  the power  to declare an  area to be a disturbed area was conferred on the Governor of  Assam and  the Chief  Commissioner of  Manipur. Section 3  was amended by Act 7 of 1972 and power to declare an area  to be a ’disturbed area’ has also been conferred on the Central  Government. In  the Statement  of  Objects  and Reasons of  the Bill  which was enacted as Act 7 of 1972 the following reason  is given  for conferring  on  the  Central Government the power to make a declaration under Section 3:-      "The  Armed   Forces   [Assam   and      Manipur] Special  Powers Act, 1958,      empowers only  the Governors of the      States and  the  Administrators  of      the Union  Territories  to  declare      areas in  the  concerned  State  or      Union  Territory   as  "disturbed".      Keeping in  view the  duty  of  the      Union  Under  article  355  of  the      Constitution,   inter    alia,   to      protect   every    State    against      internal   disturbance,    it    is      considered   desirable   that   the      Central Government should also have      power   to    declare   areas    as      "disturbed", to  enable  its  armed      forces  to   exercise  the  special

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 38  

    powers."      The relevant  provisions of  the  Central  Act  are  as under:-      2.  Definitions.-   In  this   Act,      unless   the    context   otherwise      requires,-      xxxxx   xxxxx              xxxxxx      (b) "disturbed  area" means an area      which  is   for  the   time   being      declared  by   notification   under      Section 3 to be a disturbed area;      xxxx  xxxxx             xxxxxxx      3. Power  to declare  areas  to  be      disturbed areas.-      If, in  relation to  any  State  or      Union Territory  to which  this Act      extends, the  Governor of that Stat      or the  Administrator of that Union      Territory    or     the     Central      Government, in  either case,  is of      the opinion  that the  whole or any      part  of   such  State   or   Union      Territory, as the case maybe, is in      such  a   disturbed  or   dangerous      condition that  the  use  of  armed      forces in aid of the civil power is      necessary,  the  Governor  of  that      State or  the Administrator of that      Union  Territory   or  the  Central      Government, as  the  case  may  be,      may,   by   notification   in   the      official Gazette, declare the whole      or such part of such state or Union      Territory to be a disturbed area.      4.  Special  powers  of  the  armed      forces.- Any  commissioned officer,      warrant  officer,  non-commissioned      officer  or  any  other  person  of      equivalent rank in the armed forces      may, in a disturbed area,-      (a) If  he is of opinion that it is      necessary  so   to   do   for   the      maintenance of  public order, after      giving such  due warning  as he may      consider  necessary  fire  upon  or      otherwise use  force, even  to  the      causing  of   death,  against   any      person    who    is    acting    in      contravention of  any law  or order      for the  time being in force in the      disturbed  area   prohibiting   the      assembly of five or more persons or      the  carrying   of  weapons  or  of      things capable  of  being  used  as      weapons or of fire-arms, ammunition      or explosive substances;      (b) If  he is of opinion that it is      necessary so  to  do,  destroy  and      arms dump,  prepared  or  fortified      position  or   shelter  from  which      armed  attacks   are  made  or  are      likely to  be made or are attempted      to be  made, or  any structure used      as   training    camp   for   armed      volunteers or utilised as a hid-out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 38  

    by armed gangs or absconders wanted      for any offence;      (c) arrest,  without  warrant,  any      person   who    has   committed   a      cognizable offence  or against whom      a reasonable  suspicion exists that      he has  committed or  is  about  to      commit a cognizable offence and may      use such  force as may be necessary      to effect the arrest;      (d)  enter   and   search   without      warrant any  premises to  make  any      such  arrest  as  aforesaid  or  to      recover any  person believed  to be      wrongfully restrained  or  confined      or    any    property    reasonably      suspected to  be stolen property or      any arms,  ammunition or  explosive      substances    believed     to    be      unlawfully kept  in such  premises,      and may  for that  purpose use such      force as may be necessary.      5. Arrested persons to be made over      to the police.- Any person arrested      and taken  into custody  under this      Act  shall  be  made  over  to  the      officer in  charge of  the  nearest      police  station   with  the   least      possible  delay,  together  with  a      report   of    the    circumstances      occasioning the arrest.      6.  Protection  to  persons  acting      under Act.- No prosecution, suit or      other  legal  proceeding  shall  be      instituted,   except    with    the      previous sanction  of  the  Central      Government against  any  person  in      respect   of   anything   done   or      purported to be done in exercise of      the powers conferred by this Act."      In addition  to the  powers conferred  under  the  Act, provision is  made for  use of armed forces in the following provisions contained in Sections 130 and 131 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short Cr. P.C.):-      "Section 130.  use of  armed forces      to disperse  assembly.- (1)  If any      such assembly  cannot be  otherwise      dispersed, and  if it  is necessary      for the  public  security  that  it      should be  dispersed, the Executive      Magistrate of  the highest rank who      is  present  may  cause  it  to  be      dispersed by the armed forces.      (2) Such Magistrate may require any      officer in  command of any group of      persons  belonging   to  the  armed      forces o disperse the assembly with      the help  of the armed forces under      his  command,  and  to  arrest  and      confine such  persons forming  part      of it as the Magistrate may direct,      or as it may be necessary to arrest      and confine  in order  to  disperse      the  assembly   or  to   have  them      punished according to law.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 38  

    (3) Every such officer of the armed      forces shall  obey such requisition      in such  manner, as  he thinks fit,      but in  so doing  he shall  use  as      little  force,  and  do  as  little      injury to  person and  property, as      may be  consistent with  dispersing      the  assembly   and  arresting  and      detaining such persons.      Section 131. Power to certain armed      force    officers    to    disperse      assembly.- When the public security      is  manifestly  endangered  by  any      such  assembly   and  no  Executive      Magistrate  can   be   communicated      with, any  commissioned or gazetted      officer of  the  armed  forces  may      disperse  such  assembly  with  the      help of  the armed forces under his      command, and may arrest and confine      any persons  forming part of it, in      order to  disperse such assembly or      that they may be punished according      to law,  but if, while he is acting      under  this   section,  it  becomes      practicable for  him to communicate      with an  Executive  Magistrate,  he      shall do  so, and henceforward obey      the instructions of the Magistrate,      as to whether he shall or shall not      continue such acting."      Provisions on the same lines were contained in Sections 129 to 131 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1898.      In this context, it may be mentioned that under Section 23(1) of  the Reserve  Forces Act, 1980 in England power has been conferred  on the  Secretary of  the State, at any time when occasion  appears to  require, to call out the whole or so many  as he  thinks necessary, of the members of the Army or  Air  Force  Reserve  to  aid  the  civil  power  in  the preservation of  the public  peace. In  sub-section  (2)  of Section 23  of the said Act it is provided that for the same purpose, on  the requisition  in writing of a justice of the peace, any  officer commanding  her Majesty’s  forces or the regular air  force in  any town or district may call out the men of  the Army  Reserve or  Air Force Reserve, as the case may be,  who are  there resident,  or so  many of them as he thinks necessary. Under the Queen’s Regulations for the Army 1975, para  III 0002,   a  service commander  who received a request from  the civil  power for  assistance in  order  to maintain peace  and public  order is under a duty at once to inform his  immediately superior  service authority  and the Ministry  of   Defence,  but   if,   in   very   exceptional circumstances, a grave and sudden emergency arises which, in the opinion  of the commander present, demands his immediate intervention   to protect  life and property, he must act on his own  responsibility, and  report the  matter as  soon as possible to  the chief  officer of police and to the service authorities.  [See:   Halsbury’s  Laws  of  England,  Fourth Edition, Vol. 41, pp. 27-28, para 25].      The learned  counsel for  the petitioners  in the  writ petitions filed  in this  Court  as  well  as  in  the  writ petitions filed  in the  High Court  and the learned counsel for the intervener have assailed the validity of the Central Act  on  the  ground  that  it  is  beyond  the  legislative competence of  parliament. They  have  also  challenged  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 38  

validity of  the various provisions of the Act on the ground that the  same are  violative of  the provisions of Articles 14, 19  and 21  of the  constitution. We would first examine the submissions of the learned counsel regarding legislative competence of  parliament to enact the Central Act. For that purpose it  is necessary to take not of the relevant entries in the  Union List  (List I) and the State List (List II) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.      Prior to the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, the relevant entries were as follows:-      "List I-Union List, Entry 2. Naval,      Military and  air forces, any other      armed forces of Union.      List II-State List, Entry 1. Public      order (but not including the use of      naval, military or air force or any      other armed  force of  the Union in      aid of the Civil power)."      By the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, Entry 2A  was inserted  in the  Union List.  The said  entry roads as follows :-      "2A. Deployment  of any armed force      of the  Union or  any  other  force      subject to the control of the Union      or any  contingent or  unit thereof      in any  state in  aid of  the civil      power,    powers,     jurisdiction,      privileges and  liabilities of  the      members of  such  forces  while  on      such deployment."      Entry 1  of the  State List  was  amended  to  read  as under:-      "Public order  (but  not  including      the use  of any  naval, military or      air force  or any other armed force      of the  Union or of any other force      subject to the control of the Union      or  of   any  contingent   or  unit      thereof in aid of civil power."      By the  said amendment  Article 257A  was also inserted which was in the following terms:-      "Article   257-A.   Assistance   to      States  by   deployment  of   armed      forces  or   other  forces  of  the      Union. -(1) the Government of India      may deploy  any armed  force of the      Union or any other force subject to      the  control   of  the   Union  for      dealing with any grave situation of      law and order in any State.      (2) Any  armed force or other force      of any  contingent or  unit thereof      deployed under  clause (1)  in  any      State shall  act in accordance with      such directions  as the  Government      of India  may issue  and shall not,      save as  otherwise provided in such      directions,  be   subject  to   the      superintendence or  control of  the      State Government  or any officer or      authority subordinate  to the State      Government.      (3) Parliament may, by law, specify      the  powers,  functions  privileges      and liabilities  of the  members of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 38  

    any force or any contingent or unit      thereof deployed  under clause  (1)      during   the    period   of    such      deployment."      Article 257A  was deleted  by the  Constitution (Forty- Forth Amendment)  Act, 1976  but no change was made in Entry 2A of the Union List.      While   examining   the   legislative   competence   of parliament to  make a  law what  is required  to be  seen is whether the  subject matter  falls in  the State  List which Parliament cannot  enter. If  the law  does not  fall in the State List,  Parliament would have legislative competence to pass the law by virtue of the residuary powers under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of the Union List and it would not be necessary to go into the question whether it falls under any entry in the Union List or the Concurrent List. [See : Union of India  v. H.S.  Dhillon, 1972(2) SCR 33 at pp. 61 and 67- 68; S.P.  Mittal v.  Union of  India, 1983(1)  SCR 729 at p. 769-770; and  Kartar Singh  v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) SCC 569 at pp. 569 at pp. 629-630]. What is, therefore, required to be  examined is whether the subject matter of the Central Act falls  in any  of the  entries in  the State  List.  The submission of  the learned  counsel for  the petitioners and the Intervener is that the Central Act is a law with respect to "Public Order" and falls under Entry I of the State List. The learned Attorney General of India has on the other hand, submitted that the Central Act does not fall under any entry in the State list and, as originally enacted in 1958, it was a law made under Article 248 read with Entry 97 of the union List  and   after  the   Forty-Second   Amendment   of   the Constitution it is a law falling under Entry 2A of the Union List.      Shri Shanti Bhushan has urged that under Entry 1 of the State list  the State  Legislature has  been  conferred  the exclusive power  to enact a law providing for maintenance of public order.  This power  does not,  however, extend to the use of  armed forces  in aid  of the  civil power  and  that parliament has  been empowered  to make a law in that regard and this  position has been made explicit by entry 2A of the Union List.  The submission  is that  the use  of the  armed forces in  aid of  the Civil  power contemplates  the use of armed forces  under the  control, continuous supervision and direction of  the executive  power of  the  state  and  that parliament can  only provide  that  whenever  the  executive authorities of  a State  desire, the  use of armed forces in aid  of  the  civil  power  would  be  permissible  but  the supervision and  control over the use of armed forces has to be with the civil authorities of the State concerned. It has been urged  that the Central Act does not make provision for use of  armed forces in aid of the civil power in this sense and it  envisages that  as soon as the whole o any part of a State has been declared to be disturbed area under Section 3 of the  Central Act  members of armed forces get independent power to  act under  Section 4  of the  Central Act  and  to exercise the  said power for the maintenance of public order independent of  the control  or supervision of any executive authority of  the state.  The learned  counsel has submitted that such a course is not permissible inasmuch as it amounts to handing  over the  maintenance of public order in a State to  armed   forces   directly   and   it   contravenes   the constitutional restriction of permitting use of armed forces only in  aid of  civil power.,  It is further urged that the expression "civil  power" in  Entry 1  of the  State List as well as  in Entry 2A of the Union List refers to civil power of the State Government and not of the Central Government.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 38  

    Shri Dhavan  has submitted  that the power to deal with "public order  " in  the widest  sense vests with the States and that  the Union has the exclusive power to legislate and determine the  nature of  the use for which the armed forces may be  deployed in  aid of the civil power and to legislate on an  determine the  conditions of  deployment of the armed forces and  the terms  on  which  the  forces  would  be  so deployed but  the State in whose aid the armed forces are so deployed shall  have the  exclusive power  to determine  the purposes, the  time period  and the areas in which the armed forces should  be requested to act in aid of civil power and that the State retains a final directorial control to ensure that the  armed forces  act in aid of civil power and do not supplant or act in substitution of the Civil power.      A perusal  of Entry 1 of the State List Would show that while power  to legislate  in order to maintain public order has been  assigned  to  the  State  Legislature,  the  field encompassing the  use of  armed forces  in aid  of the civil power  has   been  carved   out  from  the  said  Entry  and legislative  power   in  respect  of  that  field  has  been expressly excluded.  This means  that the  State Legislature does not  have any legislative power with respect to the use of the  armed forces  of the Union in aid of the Civil power for the purpose of maintaining public order in the State and the  Competence   to  make   a  law  in  that  regard  vests exclusively  in   parliament.  Prior   to  the  Forty-Second Amendment to  the Constitution  such power could be inferred from Entry  2 of  the Union List relating to naval, military and air  forces and  any other  armed forces of the Union as well as  under Article  248 read  with Entry 97 of the Union List. After the Forty-Second Amendment the legislative power of parliament  in respect  of deployment  of armed forces of the Union  or another  force subject  to the  control of the Union or  any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the  civil powers flows from Entry 2-A of the Union List. The expression "in aid of the civil power" in entry 1 of the State List  and in  Entry 2A  of the Union List implies that deployment of the armed forces of the Union shall be for the purpose of  enabling the  civil power  in the  State to deal with the  situation affecting  maintenance of  public  order which has necessitated the deployment of the armed forces in the  State.     The  word  "aid"  postulates  the  continued existence of the authority to be aided. This would mean that even after  deployment of  the armed  forces the civil power will continue to function. The power to make a law providing for deployment  of the  armed forces  of the Union in aid of the civil  power in  the State does not comprehend the power to enact  a law  which would  enable the armed forces of the Union to supplant or act as a substitute for the civil power in the  State. We  are, however,  unable to  agree with  the submission of  the learned  counsel for the petitioners that during the  course of  such deployment  the supervision  and control over  the use  of armed  forces has  to be  with the civil authorities  of the  State concerned or that the State concerned will  have the  exclusive power  to determine  the purpose, the  time period  and the  areas within  which  the armed forces  should be  requested to  act in  aid of  civil power. In  our opinion, what is contemplated by Entry 2-A of the Union  List and Entry I of the State List is that in the event of  deployment of the armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power in a State, the said forces shall operate in  the  State  concerned  in  cooperation  with  the  civil administration so  that the situation which has necessitated the deployment of the armed forces is effectively dealt with and normalcy is restored.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 38  

    Does  the  Central  Act  enable  the  armed  forces  to supplant or  act as  substitute  for  civil  power  after  a declaration has been made under Section 3 of the Central Act ? In view of the provisions contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Central  Act  the  question  must  be  answered  in  the negative. The  power conferred under clause (a) of Section 4 can be  exercised   only when  any person is found acting in contravention of  any law  or order  for the  time being  in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more  persons or  the carrying  of weapons  or of  things capable of being used as weapons or of fire arms, ammunition or explosive  substances. In  other words,  the  said  power conditional upon the existence of a prohibitory order issued under a  law, e.g.  Cr. P.C.  or the  Arms Act,  1959.  Such prohibitory  orders   can  be   issued  only  by  the  civil authorities  of   the  State.  In  the  absence  of  such  a prohibitory order  the power  conferred under  clause (a) of Section 4 cannot be exercised. Similarly, under Section 5 of the Central  Act there  is a requirement that any person who is arrested  and taken into custody in exercise of the power conferred by  clause (c))  of Section  4 of the Act shall be made over  to the  officer in  charge of  the nearest police station with  the least  possible  delay,  together  with  a report  of   the  circumstances   occasioning  the   arrest. Maintenance of public Order involves cognizance of offences, search, seizure  and  arrest  followed  by  registration  of reports o offences [FIRs], investigation, prosecution, trial and ,  in the  event of  conviction, execution of sentences. The powers  conferred under the Central Act only provide for cognizance of  offences,  search,  seizure  and  arrest  and destruction of  arms dumps  and shelters and structures used as training camps or as hide-outs for armed gangs. The other functions have  to be attended by the State Criminal Justice machinery,  viz.,   the   police,   the   magistrates,   the prosecuting agency,  the courts,  the jails, etc. This would show that  the powers that have been conferred under Section 4 of  the Central  Act do not enable the armed forces of the Union t  supplant or ac as substitute for the civil power of the State  and the Central Act only enables the armed forces to assist  the civil  power of the State in dealing with the disturbed conditions  affecting the  maintenance  of  public order in the disturbed area.      Under Section  3, as  amended by  Act 7  of  1972,  the Central Government  has been empowered to declare an area to be a  disturbed area.  There is no requirement that it shall consult the  State Government before making the declaration. As a  consequence of  such a  declaration  the  power  under section   4 can be exercised by the armed forces and such  a declaration can  only be  revoked by the Central Government. The conferment  of the  said power on the Central Government regarding declaration  of areas  to be  disturbed areas does not,  however,   result  in   taking  over   of  the   state administration by  the Army  or by other armed forces of the Union  because   after  such   declaration  by  the  Central Government the powers under Section 4 of the Central Act can be exercised  by the personnel of the armed forces only with the cooperation  of the  authorities of the State Government concerned.  It  is,  therefore,  desirable  that  the  State Government should  be consulted  and its co-operation sought while making  a declaration.  It would be useful to refer to the report  of the  Sarkaria  Commission  on  Central-States Relation  which   has  also  dealt  with  this  aspect.  The Commission has observed:      7.5.01 .... Clearly, the purpose of      deployment  which   is  to  restore

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 38  

    public  order   and   ensure   that      effective follow up action is taken      in order  to prevent  recurrence of      disturbances,  cannot  be  achieved      without the  active assistance  and      co-operation  of   the  entire  law      enforcing machinery  of  the  State      Government. If the Union Government      chooses to take unilateral steps to      quell  an   internal   disturbances      without the assistance of the State      Government,  these   can  at   best      provide  temporary   relief   State      Government,  these   can  at   best      provide  temporary  relief  to  the      affected area and none at all where      such disturbances are chronic.      7.5.02       Thus,        practical      considerations, as indicated above,      make it  imperative that  the union      Government    should     invariably      consult and seek the cooperation of      the   State   Government,   if   it      proposes either  to deploy suo motu      its armed  forces in  that State or      to declare  an area  as need hardly      be empasised that without the state      Government’s cooperation,  the mere      assertion  of   the  of  the  Union      Government’s right  to  deploy  its      armed forces  cannot  solve  public      order problems.      7.5.03 We  recommend  that,  before      deploying  Union  armed  and  other      forces in  a State  in aid  of  the      civil power  otherwise  than  on  a      request from  the State Government,      or before  declaring an area within      a State  as a  "disturbed area", it      is   desirable   that   the   State      Government  should   be  consulted,      wherever    feasible,    and    its      cooperation  sought  by  the  Union      Government.     However,      prior      consultation   with    the    State      Government is not obligatory."      [Part I, pp. 198, 199]      It  is,   therefore,  not   possible  to   accept   the contentions urged  by Shri  Shanti Bhushan  and Shri  Dhavan that the  Central Act  is ultra  vires the legislative power conferred on  Parliament inasmuch  as it  s not an enactment providing for deployment of armed forces in aid of the civil power, but  is an  enactment with  respect to maintenance of public  order  which  is  a  field  assigned  to  the  State legislature under entry 1 of the State List.      Another contention that has been advanced by Ms. Indira Jaisingh  to   Challenge  the   legislative  competence   of parliament  is   that  the  Central  Act  is,  in  pith  and substance, a  law relating to ’armed rebellion’ and that the subject of  armed rebellion  falls within  the ambit  of the emergency powers  contained in  Part XVIII  (Articles 352 to 360) of  the  Constitution  and  that  in  exercise  of  its legislative  power   under  Entry   2A  of  the  Union  List Parliament has  no power  to legislative  on the  subject of armed rebellion.  It has  also been  urged that  Article 352

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 38  

incorporates certain  safeguards which  are sought  to be by passed by  the Central Act., Shri Sibal has also adopted the same line  and has  urge that the Central Act was enacted to deal with  a disturbed  or dangerous  condition which  is no less than  armed rebellion  and the parliament is seeking to by-pass Article  352 or  Article 356 of the Constitution and the  Central   Act  is,   therefore,  unconstitutional.  The submission of Shri Dhavan is that the Central Act deals with the  situation  and  the  circumstances  which  are  broadly similar to  the circumstances  of ’internal disturbance’ and armed rebellion’  in which  a proclamation under Article 352 would be  made for a part of the territory of India and that such a  proclamation under  Article 352  would be made for a part of  the territory of India and that such a proclamation under Article  352 is  the only and exclusive method to deal with such  circumstances and the parliament is dis-empowered from enacting  legislation dealing  with ’armed  rebellion’, terrorism or  insurgency in  any part  of India. It has also been submitted   that since the circumstances covered by the Central Act  and Article 352 are similar, the Central Act is a colourable  legislation and  a fraud  on the  Constitution since it  does not incorporate within it constraints similar to those  contained in  Article 352 which have the effect of limiting  its   application  within   stringent  limits  and enabling a  responsible and  effective monitoring of its use and abuse .      The learned  Attorney General,  on the  other hand, has urged that  the proclamation  of Emergency under Article 352 has a far reaching consequence and can effect very seriously the legislative  and executive  powers of the State and that the power  that has  been conferred under the Central Act is of a very limited nature. It has been pointed out that after the insertion  of "armed  rebellion" in  Article 352  by the Constitution (Forty-fourth  Amendment) Act,  1978,  a  clear distinction had  been drawn  between ’internal  disturbance’ and ’armed rebellion’ and the power under Article 352 can be invoked only when there is a threat to the security of India by armed  rebellion or  war or  external aggression  and the situation  of   internal  disturbance   would  not   justify invocation  of   Article  352.  Nor  would  it  justify  the invocation of  the drastic  provisions of Article 356 by the president. But,  at  the  same  time,  the  situation  would entitle the  Union Government to invoke its power and indeed perform its duties under Article 355.      While  considering   the  submissions  of  the  learned counsel in  this regard,  it has  to be  borne in  mind that Articles 352  and 356  contain emergency powers which can be invoked by  the president  exercising the executive power of the Union subject to such action being approved by bot ht he House of  parliament within  a specified period. The Central Act, on  the other  hand, has  been enacted by parliament in exercise of  its legislative  power   under Articles 246 and 248.      Prior to  the amendment  of Article  352 by  the Forty- fourth Amendment  of the  Constitution it  was open  to  the president to  issue a  proclamation of  Emergency if  he was satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India  or  of  any  part  of  the  territory  thereof  is threatened  whether   by  war   or  external  aggression  or ‘internal disturbance’.  By the  Forty-fourth Amendment  the Words  ‘internal  disturbance’  in  Article  352  have  been substituted by  the words  ‘armed rebellion’. The expression ‘internal disturbance’  has a  wider connotation than ‘armed rebellion’ in  the sense that ‘armed rebellion’ is likely to pose a  threat to  the security  of the  county  or  a  part

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 38  

thereof, while  ‘internal disturbance’,  thought serious  in nature, would  not pose  a threat  to the  security  of  the country or  a part  thereof. The  intention  underlying  the substitution of  the word ‘internal disturbance’ by the word ‘armed  rebellion’  in  Article      352  is  to  limit  the invocation of the emergency powers under Article 352 only to more serious  situations where  there is  a  threat  to  the security of  the country or a part thereof on account of war or external aggression or armed rebellion and to exclude the invocation of  emergency powers  in situations  of  internal disturbance which are of lesser gravity . This has been done because a  proclamation of  emergency under  Article 352 has serious implications  having effect on the executive as well as the  legislative powers  of the  States as  well  as  the Union. As  a result  of a  proclamation  under  Article  352 parliament can  make a  law extending  the duration  of  the House of the People [Article 83(2) Proviso]; Parliament gets the power  to legislate  with respect  to any  matter in the State List  [Article 250];  the executive power of the Union is enlarged  so as  to extend to the giving of directions to any State  as to  the manner  in which  the executive  power thereof is  to  be  exercised  [Article  353(a)];  power  of parliament to  make laws  with  respect  to  any  matter  is enlarged to  include power  to make  laws, conferring powers and imposing  duties   authorising the  conferring of powers and the  imposition of duties upon the Union or officers and authorities  of   the  Union   as  respects   that   matter, notwithstanding that  it is  one which  is not enumerated in the Union  List [Article 353(b) ]; the president can pass an order directing  that  all  or  any  of  the  provisions  of Articles 268  to 279  relating to  distribution of  revenues shall have  effect subject  to such exceptions modifications as he thinks fit [Article 354]; the provisions of Article 19 are suspended  (Article 358);  and the  enforcement of other rights conferred by part III (except Articles 20 and 21) can be  suspended   by  the   President   [Article   359].   The consequences of  a proclamation  of emergency  under Article 352   are thus  much more  drastic  and  far  reaching  and, therefore,  the  Constitution  takes  care  to  provide  for certain safeguards  in Article  352 for  invoking  the  said provision. There  is no  material on the record to show that the disturbed  conditions in the States to which the Central Act has been extended are due to an armed rebellion. Even if the disturbance  is as  a result  of armed  rebellion  by  a section of  the people  in those  States the disturbance may not be  of such  a magnitude  as to  pose a  threat  to  the Security of  the country  or  part thereof so as to call for invocation of the emergency powers under Article 352. If the disturbance caused by armed rebellion does not pose a threat to the  security of  the country  and the  situation can  be handled by  deployment of  armed forces  of the Union in the disturbed area,  there appears  to  be  no  reason  why  the drastic power  under Article  352 should  be invoked. It is, therefore, not  possible to hold that the Central Act, which is primarily  enacted to  confer  certain  powers  on  armed forces when  deployed in aid of civil power to deal with the situation of  internal disturbance  in a disturbed area, has been enacted  to deal  with a  situation which  can only  be dealt with  by issuing  a proclamation  of  emergency  under Article 352.      The contention  based on  the provisions of Article 356 is also  without substance. Reference in this context may be made to  Article 355  of the  Constitution whereunder a duty has been imposed on the Union to protect every State against external aggression  and internal  disturbance and to ensure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 38  

that  the   government  of   every  State   is  carried   on inaccordance with  the provisions  of the  Constitution.  In view of  the said provision the Union Government is under an obligation to  take  steps  to  deal  with  a  situation  of internal disturbance  in a  State. There  can be a situation arising out  of internal  disturbance which  may justify the issuance  of   a  proclamation  under  Article  356  of  the Constitution enabling the President to assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State. That would depend  on the  gravity of  the situation  arising  on account of  such internal  disturbance and  on the President being satisfied  that  a  situation  has  arisen  where  the Government of  the State  cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions  of the  Constitution. A  proclamation under Article 356 has serious consequences affecting the executive as well as the legislative powers of the State concerned. By issuing such a proclamation the President assumes to himself all or  any of  the functions  o the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or  any body  or authority  in the State other than the Legislature of the State and declares that the powers of the Legislature  of the  State shall  be exercisable  by  or under the  authority of  parliament. Having  regard  to  the drastic  nature   of  the   consequences  flowing   from   a proclamation under Article 356 it is required to be approved by both  Houses of Parliament within a prescribed period and it can be continued only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and it cannot remain in force for more than three years. The  provisions of  the Central Act have been enacted to enable the Central Government to discharge the obligation imposed on  it under  Article 355 of the Constitution and to prevent the  situation arising  due to  internal disturbance assuming such seriousness as to require invoking the drastic provisions of  Article 356  of the Constitution. The Central Act  does   not  confer  of  the  Union  the  executive  and legislative powers  of the  States in  respect  of  which  a declaration has  been made  under Section 3. It only enables the personnel  of armed  forces of the Union to exercise the power  conferred   under  Section   4  in  the  event  of  a notification declaring  an area to be a disturbed area being issued under Section 3. Having regard to the powers that are conferred under  Section 4,  we are unable to appreciate how the enactment  of the  Central Act  can be  equated with the exercise of the power under Article 356 of the Constitution.      As regards  the submission  that the  Central Act  is a colourable legislation  and a  fraud on the Constitution, it may be  mentioned that  as far back as in 1954 this Court in K.C. Gajapati  Narayan Deo  & Anr.  v. The  State of Orissa, 1954 SCR 1, had said:-      "It may be made clear at the outset      that  the  doctrine  of  colourable      legislation does  not  involve  any      question  of  bona  fides  or  mala      fides   on    the   part   of   the      legislature.  The   whole  doctrine      resolves itself  into the  question      of  competency   of  a   particular      legislature to  enact a  particular      law.   If    the   legislature   is      competent to pass a particular law,      the motives  which impelled  it  to      act are  really irrelevant.  On the      other  hand,   if  the  legislature      lacks competency,  the question  of      motive  does   not  arise  at  all.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 38  

    Whether a statute is constitutional      or not it thus always a question of      power."      [pp. 10, 11]      The same  view was  reiterated in  R.S.  Joshi,  S.T.O. Gujarat Etc.  Etc. v  Ajit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. Etc. Etc., 1978  (1) SCR 338, decided by a Special Bench of Seven Judges in the following observations:-      "In  the  jurisprudence  of  power,      colourable exercise  of or fraud on      legislative    power    or,    more      frightfully,    fraud     on    the      Constitution, are expressions which      merely mean that the legislature is      incompetent to  enact a  particular      law,   although    the   label   of      competency is  stuck on  it,  an  d      then it  is colourable legislation.      It is very important to notice that      if the  legislature is competent to      pass  the   particular   law,   the      motives which  impel it to pass the      law are  really irrelevant.  To put      it more  relevantly to  the case on      hand, if  a legislation, apparently      enacted  under  one  Entry  in  the      list,  falls  in  plain  truth  and      fact, within  the content,  not  of      that Entry  but of  one assigned to      another  legislature,   it  can  be      struck down  as colourable  even if      the motive  were most  commendable.      In other  words, the  letter of the      law notwithstanding,  what  is  the      pith and substance of the Act? Does      it fall  within any  entry assigned      to that  legislature  in  pith  and      substance, or  as  covered  by  the      ancillary powers  implied  in  that      Entry? Can  the legislation be read      down reasonably  to bring it within      the  legislature’s   constitutional      powers? If  these questions  can be      answered affirmatively,  the law is      valid. Malice  or motive  is beside      the   point,    and   it   is   not      permissible       to        suggest      parliamentary incompetence  on  the      score of mala fides."      [pp. 349, 350]      The use  of  the  expression  "colourable  legislation" seeks to convey that by enacting the legislation in question the legislature  is seeking  to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.  But ultimately  the issue  boils down  to  the question whether the legislature had the competence to enact the legislation  because if  the impugned  legislation falls within the  competence of  the legislature  the question  of doing something  indirectly which  cannot be  done  directly does not arise.      As regards  the competence  of Parliament  to enact the Central Act,  we have  already found  that keeping  in  view Entry 1 of the State List and Article 248 read with Entry 97 and Entries  2 and  2A of  the  Union  List  Parliament  was competent to  enact the  Central Act  in 1958 in exercise of its legislative  power under  Entry 2  of the Union List and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 38  

Article  248 read with Entry 97 of the Union List and, after the  forty-second   amendment  of   the  Constitution,   the legislative power to enact the said legislation is expressly conferred under  Entry 2A   of  the Union  list and  that it cannot be  regarded as  a law  falling under  Entry 1 of the State List.  Since Parliament  is  competent  to  enact  the Central Act,  it is  not open  to challenge on the ground of being a colourable legislation or a fraud on the legislative power conferred on Parliament.      Having  dealt   with  the   question   of   legislative competence of  Parliament to enact the Central Act, we would now proceed  to deal  with the  submissions of  the  learned counsel assailing  the provisions  contained in the Act. The expression ’disturbed area’ has been defined in Section 2(b) to mean  an area  which is  for the  time being  declared by notification under  Section 3  to be  a disturbed  area. Ms. Indira  Jaising  has  assailed  the  validity  of  the  said provision on the ground that it is vague inasmuch as it does not lay  down any  guidelines for  declaring an area to be a ’disturbed area’.   We  do not  find any  substance in  this contention. Section  2(b)   has to  be read  with Section  3 which contains  the power  to  declare  an  areas  to  be  a ’disturbed area’.  In   the said  section declaration  about disturbed area  can be made where the Governor of that State or the  Administrator of that Union Territory of the Central Government is  of the  opinion that the whole or any part of such Stat or Union Territory, as the case may be, is in such a disturbed  or dangerous  condition that  the use  of armed forces in aid of the Civil power is necessary. Since the use of armed  forces of the Union in aid of the civil power in a state would be in discharge of the obligation imposed on the Union  under  Article  355  to  protect  the  State  against internal disturbance,  the disturbance  in the  area  to  be declared as ’disturbed area’ has to be of such a nature that the Union would be obliged to protect the State against such disturbance. In  this context, reference can also be made to Article  257A   which  was   inserted  by  the  Forty-Second Amendment along  with Entry  2A of  the Union List. Although Article 257A has been deleted by the Forty-Fourth Amendment, it can  be  looked  in  to  since  it  gives  an  indication regarding  the  disturbance  which  would  be  required  for deployment of armed forces of the union for use of the Civil power. The  said article  provided that  the  Government  of India may  deploy any  armed forces of the Union for dealing with any  grave situation  of law and order in any State. It can, therefore,  be said  that for an area to be declared as ’disturbed area’   there must exist a grave situation of law and order  on the  basis of which the Governor/Administrator of the  State/Union Territory  or the Central Government can form an  opinion  that  area  is  in  such  a  disturbed  or dangerous condition  that the  use of armed forces in aid of the civil  power is necessary. It cannot, therefore, be said for arbitrary  and unguided  power has been conferred in the matter of  declared an  area as disturbed area under Section 2(b) read with Section 3 of the Central Act.      The provisions  of Section  3 of  the Central  Act have been assailed  y the  learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there is no requirement of a periodic review of  a   declaration  issued  under  Section  3  and  that  a declaration once  issued can  operate without  any limit  of time. We  are unable  to construe  Section 3 as conferring a power to  issue a  declaration without  any time  limit. The definition of  ’disturbed  area’  in  Section  2(b)  of  the Central Act  talks of  "an areas which is for the time being declared by  notification under  Section 3 to be a disturbed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 38  

area". (emphasis  supplied) The  words "for  the time being" imply that  the declaration  under Section 3 has to be for a limited duration  and cannot  be a  declaration  which  will operate indefinitely.  It is no doubt true that in Section 3 there is  no requirement  that  the  declaration  should  be reviewed periodically. But since the declaration is intended to be for a limited duration and a declaration can be issued only when there is grave situation law and order, the making of the declaration carries within it an obligation to review the gravity  of the  situation from  time to  time  and  the continuance of  the declaration  has to  be decided on sch a periodic assessment  of the gravity of the situation. During the course  of the  arguments, the  learned Attorney General has made the following statement indicating the stand of the Union of India in this regard:-      "It is  stated  on  behalf  of  the      Government of  India that  it keeps      all  notifications  it  has  issued      under  the  Armed  Forces  (Special      Powers) Act, under constant review.      It states that even in future while      the  notifications  themselves  may      not  mention  the  period  it  will      review  all   future  notifications      within a  period of at the most one      year from the date of issue, and if      continued, within  a period  of one      year regularly  thereafter. As  far      as the  current  notifications  are      concerned, their  continuance  will      be  reviewed  within  a  period  of      three  months   from   today.   The      Government  may   also  review   or      revoke  the  notifications  earlier      depending   on    the    prevailing      situation."      The learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the period  of one  year is unduly long and have invited our attention to  the provisions  contained in  Articles 352 and 356 which postulate periodic review of a proclamation issued under the  said provisions  after every  six months.  It has been urged  that there  is no  reason why  a  longer  period should be required for review of a declaration under Section 3 of  the Central  Act. Keeping  in view  the fact  that the declaration about  an area  being declared  as a  ’disturbed area’ can  be issued  only in  a grave  situation of law and order as  well as  the extent  of the  powers  that  can  be exercised under  Section 4 of the Central Act in a disturbed area, we  are of  the view  that a  periodic review  of  the declaration made  under Section  3 of the Central Act should be made  by the  Government/Administration that  has  issued such declaration  before the  expiry  of  a  period  of  six months.      There is  one other aspect which cannot be ignored. The primary task  of the  armed forces of the Union is to defend the country  in the  event of  war or  when it  is face with external aggression.  Their training  and orientation defeat the hostile  forces. A  situation  of  internal  disturbance involving  the   local  population   requires  a   different approach. Involvement  of armed  forces is  handling such  a situation  brings   them   in   confrontation   with   their countrymen. Prolonged  or too  frequent deployment  of armed forces for  handling such situations is likely to generate a feeling of  alienation among  the people  against the  armed forces who  by their  sacrifices in  the  defence  of  their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 38  

country have  earned a place in the hearts of the people. It also has  an adverse  effect on the morale and discipline of the  personnel  of  the  armed  forces.  It  is,  therefore, necessary that  the authority  exercising  the  power  under Section 3  to make a declaration so exercises the said power that the  extent of  the disturbed  area is  confined to the area in  which the  situation is  such  that  it  cannot  be handled without  seeking the  aid of the armed forces and by making a  periodic assessment  of the  situation  after  the deployment of  the armed  forces the  said authority  should decide whether  the declaration  should be continued and, in case the  declaration is  required to  be continues, whether the extent of the disturbed area should be reduced.      Shri Sibal  has urged  that the  conferment of power to issue a  declaration under  Section 3  of the Central Act on the Governor  of the  State is  invalid since  it amounts to delegation of  power of  the Central Government and that for the purpose of issuing a declaration the application of mind must be  that of  the Central Government with respect to the circumstances   in which  such deployment of armed forces is to take  place and  that conferment  of the  power to make a declaration on  the Governor  of the State cannot be held to be valid.  There is  a basic  infirmity in  this contention. There is  a distinction  between delegation  of power  by  a statutory authority  and statutory  conferment of power on a particular authority/authorities  by the  Legislature. Under Section 3 of the Central Act there is no delegation of power of the Central Government to the Governor of the State. What has been  done is  that the power to issue a declaration has been conferred  by Parliament  on three authorities, namely, (1) the  Governor of  the State;(2) the Administrator of the Union Territory,  and (3) the Central Government. In view of the information available at the local level the Governor of the State  or the Administrator of the Union Territory is in a position to assess the situation and form an opinion about the need  for invoking the provisions of the Central Act for use of  the armed  forces of  the Union  in aid of the Civil power for  the purpose  of dealing  with the situation  that has arisen  in the  concerned State  or the Union Territory. Moreover the issuance of a declaration, by itself, would not oblige the  Central Government to deploy the armed forces of the Union.  After such  a declaration has been issued by the Governor/Administrator the  Central Government would have to take a  decision regarding deployment of the armed forces of the Union in the area that has been declared as a ’disturbed area’. The  conferment of power on the Governor of the State to make  the declaration  under Section 3 cannot, therefore, be  regarded   as  delegation   of  power   of  the  Central Government.      Shri Dhavan  has  taken  a  difference  stand.  He  has assailed the  conferment of  power to  issue  a  declaration under Section 3 on the Central Government on the ground that the words  ’in aid  of the  civil power" postulates that the state  alone   should  consider  whether  the  public  order requires armed  forces of  the Union to be called in aide of civil power  and that  the conferment  such a  power on  the Central Government  is destructive  of  the  federal  scheme which is  a part of the basis structure of the Constitution. We are unable to accept this contention. Whether a situation has arisen  which requires the making of a declaration under Section 3  so as  to enable the armed forces of the Union to be deployed  in aid of the Civil power is a matter which has to be  considered by the Governor of the State/Administrator of the Union Territory as well as Central Government because the  cooperation  of  both  is  required  for  handling  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 38  

situation. By virtue of Article 355 the Union owes a duty to protect the  States against  internal disturbance  and since the deployment  of armed  forces in  aid of civil power in a State is  to be  made by the Central Government in discharge of the said constitutional obligation, the conferment of the power to  issue a  declaration  on  the  Central  Government cannot be  held to  be violative  of the  federal scheme  as envisaged by the Constitution.      As regards the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Central Act,  Shri Shanti  Bhushan has  urged that  adequate provisions are  contained in  Sections 130  and 131  of  the Cr.P.C. to  deal with a situation requiring the use of armed forces  in   aid  of  civil  power  and  that  there  is  no justification for  having a special law, as the Central Act, unless it  can be shown that the said provisions in sections 130 and 131 Cr. P.C. are not adequate to meet the situation. it has  been submitted  that Sections  130 and  131  Cr.P.C. contain several  safeguards for the protection of the rights of the  people and that the powers conferred under Section 4 of the  Central Act  are much  more drastic  in nature.  The submission is  that if there are adequate provisions to deal with  the   situation  in  the  general  law  (Cr.P.C.)  the enactment of  more drastic  provisions in  Section 4  of the Central  Act   to  deal   with   the   same   situation   is discriminatory  and   unjustified.  In   our  opinion,  this contention  is  devoid  of  any  force.  Section  130  makes provisions for the armed forces being asked by the Executive magistrate to  disperse an unlawful assembly which cannot be other wise dispersed and such dispersal is necessary for the public security.  The said  provision  has  a  very  limited application inasmuch  as it enables the Executive magistrate to deal  with a  particular  incident  involving  breach  of public security  arising on  account of an unlawful assembly and the use of the armed forces for dispersing such unlawful assembly. The  Central Act makes provisions for dealing with a different type of situation where the whole or a part of a state is  in a  disturbed or  dangerous condition and it has not been  possible for  the civil power of the State to deal with it  and it  has become necessary to seek the aid of the armed forces  of the  Union for  dealing  with  disturbance. Similarly, under  Section  131  Cr.P.C.  a  commissioned  or gazetted officer  of the  armed forces has been empowered to deal with  an isolated incident where the public security is manifestly  endangered   by  any   unlawful  assembly.   The provisions in  Section 130  and 131  Cr.P.C. cannot  thus be treated  as   comparable  and  adequate  to  deal  with  the situation requiring  the continuous  use of  armed forces in aid of  the civil  power for  certain period in a particular area as  envisaged by the Central Act and it is not possible to hold  that since  adequate provisions  to deal  with  the situation requiring  the use of armed forces in aid of civil power are contained in Sections 130 and 131 CR.P.C.    the conferment of  the powers  on officers  of the  armed forces under Section  4 of  the Central  Act to  deal with  a grave situation of  law and  order in a State is discriminatory in nature and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.      The provisions  of Section  4, in  general,  have  been assailed by  the learned  counsel for the petitioners on the ground that  the said powers can also be exercised by a non- commissioned officer  who is  much inferior in rank and that ass a  result of  the conferment of these powers on a junior officer, there is likelihood of the powers being misused and abused. The  learned Attorney  General has, however, pointed out that  an infantry  battalion in  the area is required to cover large  areas wherein  it is  deployed on  grid pattern

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 38  

with special  reference to  sensitivity of certain areas and important  installations/vital  points.  The  deployment  is either in  sections  or  platoons  which  are  commanded  by Commissioned  Officers   and  Junior  Commissioned  Officers respectively.  Any   operation  in   a  counter   insurgency environment is  normally under a commissioned officer/junior Commissioned  officer,   depending  on  the  nature  of  the operation.  However,   during  an  operation  the  group  is required to  be further  sub divided  into teams  which  are commanded by  Non  Commissioned  Officers.  As  regards  Non Commissioned Officers  it has  been pointed out that a Jawan is promoted to the rank of Naik after approximately  8 to 10 years of  service and to the rank of Havildar after 12 to 15 years  or  service  and  that  a  Non  Commissioned  Officer exercising powers  under Section  4 is  a mature person with adequate experience  and is  reasonably well versed with the legal  provisions.   This  aspect   of  the  case  has  been considered by  the Delhi  High Court  in the  judgment under appeal in Civil Appeals Nos. 721-24 of 1985 (reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 513) Wherein it has been observed:-      "The   argument    is   based    on      unawareness   of   the   rank   and      responsibilities of  officers  like      Havildars. In  army setup or setups      following the army pattern Havildar      is not  such a  junior official  or      such an  irresponsible  officer  as      mr.  Salve  apprehends.  The  usual      organisational set up is that three      or  more  battalions  constitute  a      Regiment. Three  or more  companies      constitute   a    battalion.   Each      company   is    commanded   by    a      commissioned officer  or an officer      of an  equivalent rank. The company      itself is  divided  into  platoons,      each platoon  is again commanded by      a  commissioned   officer   or   an      officer of  equivalent  rank.  Each      platoon  is   divided  into   three      sections. The  Sections  Commanders      are   usually   Naiks.   The   non-      commissioned  officer  incharge  of      the platoon  or a  section  of  the      platoon is  a Havildar.  He is  the      direct     link     between     the      commissioned officer and the jawans      as well  as section  Commanders.  A      jawan first  becomes a  Lance Naik,      then  a   Naik  and   thereafter  a      Havildar.  The  classes  of  ranks,      apart   from    the    commissioned      officers or  officers of equivalent      rank, are  Subedar Major,  Subedar,      Jamadar,      Havildar       Major,      Havildar/defenders, Naik  and Lance      Naik  and   a   soldier.   In   the      hierarchy, therefore,  a Havildar s      fairly high  and certainly  holds a      very  responsible   position.  When      troops or  forces are  deployed the      sections or  the petrols are by and      large commanded  by havildars. That      is why the Havildars are treated as      and recognised  as non-commissioned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 38  

    officers. The  three categories  of      officers generally are commissioned      officers    junior     commissioned      offices    and     non-commissioned      officers.     Havildars  are   non-      commissioned officers."              [pp. 533, 534]      Having regard  to the status and experience of the Non- Commissioned Officers  in the Army and the fact that when in command of  a team  in a  counter insurgency  operation they must operate on their own initiative, it cannot be said that conferment of  powers under  Section 4 on a Non-Commissioned Officer renders  the provision  invalid  on  the  ground  of arbitrariness.      We may  now examine  the  submissions  of  the  learned counsel  for  the  petitioners  assailing  the  validity  of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 4 of the Central Act.      A regards  clause (a)  of Section  4 the  submission is that it  empowers any  commissioned officer, warrant officer or  non-commissioned   officer  or   any  other   person  of equivalent  rank  in  the  armed  forces  to  fire  upon  or otherwise use force even to the causing of death against any person who  is acting  in contravention  of any law or order for  the   time  being   in  force  in  the  disturbed  area prohibiting the  assembly of  five or  more persons  or  the carrying of  weapons or  things capable  of  being  used  as weapons or of fire arms, ammunition or explosive substances. It has  been urged  that the conferment of such a wide power is unreasonable  and arbitrary.  We are unable to agree. The powers under  Section 4(a) can be exercised  only when (a) a prohibitory order  of the nature specified in that clause is in force  in the  disturbed area; (b) the officer exercising those powers forms the opinion  that it is necessary to take action  for   maintenance  of   public  order   against  the person/persons  acting  contravention  of  such  prohibitory order; and  (c) a  due  warning  as  the  officer  considers necessary is  given before taking action. The laying down of these conditions  gives an  indication that while exercising the powers  the officer shall use minimal force required for effective action  against  the  person/persons  acting    in contravention   of    the   prohibitory    order.   In   the circumstances, it  cannot be said that clause (a) of Section 4 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or is reasonable.      Shri Dhavan  has submitted  that  the  power  conferred under Section  4(a) must  be so  construed that  it  can  be exercised only  against armed persons and that the word "or" between the words "assembly or five or more persons" and the words "carrying  of weapons"  should be  read as  "and". The language  of   Section  4(a)   does  not  support  the  said construction. Clause  (a) of  Section 4  empowers the use of force against  any person  who is acting in contravention of any law  or order  for  the  time  being  in  force  in  the disturbed area.  it contemplates  two types  of such orders, viz., (a)) an order prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons, and  (b)  an  order  prohibiting  the  carrying  of weapons or  of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire-arms,  ammunition  or  explosive  substances.  The  two orders are  different in  nature in  the sense that an order prohibiting the  assembly of  five or  more persons  can  be issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., while an order prohibiting the carrying  of weapons  or of things capable of being used as  weapons   or  of   fire-arms,  ammunition  or  explosive substances has  to be  passed under  the Arms  Act, 1959  or other  similar  enactment.  The  word  "or"  links  the  two prohibitory orders  and if it is read as "and’, as suggested

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 38  

By Shri  Dhavan, the  result would be that action could only be taken  under clause (a) where both the prohibitory orders and if it is read as "and", as suggested by Shri Dhavan, the result would be that action could only be taken under clause (a) where  both the prohibitory orders were contravened by a person/persons. Such a construction would defeat the purpose of the provision and cannot be accepted.      Section 4(b)  confers the  power to  destroy  any  arms dump, prepared  or fortified  position or shelter from which armed attacks  are made  or are  likely to  be made  or  are attempted to  be made or any structure used as training camp for armed  volunteers or  utilised as  a hide  out by  armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence. It is urged that the said  power is  very wide  in   its scope and that apart from destruction  of any  arms  dump,  fortified  positions, shelters and structures used by armed groups for attacks, it extends to destruction of a structure utilised as a hide-out by absconders  wanted for  any offence  and  that,  to  that extent, it  is invalid.  We do  not find  any merit  in this contention. Absconders  wanted for  an   offence are persons who are  evading the  legal process.  In view  of their past activities  the   possibility  of   their   repeating   such activities cannot  be excluded  and the  conferment  of  the power   to destroy  the structure  utilised as a hide-out by such absconders  in order  to control such activities cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable.      Under clause  (c) of Section 4 power has been conferred to arrest,  without warrant,  any person who has committed a cognizable offence  or against  whom a  reasonable suspicion exists that  he has  committed  or  is  about  to  commit  a cognizable offence and the concerned officer is empowered to use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest. The Said power  is not  very different  from the power which has been conferred  on a police officer under Section 41 Cr.P.C. Clause (c)  has to be read with Section 5 of the Central Act which requires  that any  person  arrested  and  taken  into custody shall  be made  over to the officer in charge of the nearest  police  station  with  the  least  possible  delay, together with  a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. It has been urged that there is nothing in Section 5 to indicate  that the officer exercising the power of arrest Under  Section   4(c)  is   obliged  to   comply  with   the requirements of  clauses (a)  and (2)  of Articles 22 of the Constitution. There  is no  basis for  this contention.  The power conferred  under Section  4(c) read with Section 5 has to  be   exercised  in   consonance  with   the   overriding requirements of  clauses (1)  and (2)  of Article  22 of the Constitution which  means that the person who is arrested by an officer specified in Section 4 has to be made over to the officer in  charge of  the nearest  police station  together with a  report of  the circumstances  occasioning the arrest with the  least possible  delay so  that the person arrested can be  produced before  the  nearest  magistrate  within  a period of  twenty-four hours  of such  arrest excluding  the time necessary  for the  journey from the place of arrest to the court  of the  magistrate and  no  such  person  can  be detained in  custody beyond  the  said  period  without  the authority of a magistrate.      In clause  (d) of Section 4 power has been conferred to enter and  search without  warrant any  premises to make any such arrest  as aforesaid  or to recover any person believed to be  wrongfully restrained  or confined  or  any  property reasonably suspected  to be  stolen property  or  any  arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawfully kept in  such premises,  and the  concerned officer  may for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 38  

that purpose  use such  force as  may be  necessary. Similar powers of  search are  conferred on  a police  officer under Section 47  Cr. P.C.  It has  been urged  that in respect of property or  arms, ammunition  or explosive substances which are seized  during the  course of  search under  clause  (d) there is  no provision  similar to  Section 5  requiring the officer exercising the said power to hand over this property and arms,  ammunition  or  explosive.  substances  that  are recovered in  the search  to the  officer in  charge of  the nearest police station. It is no doubt true that there is no provision similar to Section 5 requiring the handing over of the property  or arms,  ammunitions  etc.  that  are  seized during the  course of  search under  Section 4(c)  but since such seized  property or  material will  be required  in the proceedings to  be initiated against the culprits from whose possession the  same was  recovered. it  is implicit  in the power that  has been  conferred under  Section 4(d)  that it should  be  exercised  in  accordance  with  the  provisions relating to  search an  seizure contained  in  the  Criminal Procedure Code  and the  Property or  the arms  ammunitions, etc. that  is seized  during  the  course  of  search  under Section 4(d) must be handed over to the officer in charge of the nearest  Police Station  with the  least possible  delay together with  a report of the circumstances occasioning the search and seizure.      An argument  was raised  that in view of the proviso to sub-section (2)  of Section  1 Cr.P.C.   the  provisions  of Cr.P.C., other  than those  relating to Chapters VIII, X and XI thereof,  are not applicable to the state of Nagaland and tribal areas  in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The  inapplicability of  the provisions  of Cr.P.C. in those  areas, in  our opinion,  is of  little consequence because in  the context of Nagaland this court has laid down that even though the provisions of Cr.P.C are not applicable in certain districts of the State of Nagaland, it only means that the  rules of  the Cr.P.C.   would  not apply  but  the authorities would  be governed  by the  substance  of  these rules. [See: State of Nagaland v. Ratan Singh, etc., 1966(3) SCR 830,  at pp. 851, 852]. In the circumstances, it must be held that  that the  provisions of  Cr.P.C. governing search and seizure  have to be followed during the course of search and seizure  under Section  4 (d)  and the property or arms, ammunitions, etc.  seized during  the course  of such search has to  be   produced by  the officer  of the  armed  forces before the  officer in  charge of the nearest police station with the  least possible  delay along  with a  report of the circumstances occasioning such search and seizure.      Under Section  6  protection  has  been  given  to  the persons acting  under  the  Central  Act  and  it  has  been prescribed  that   no  prosecution,   suit  or  other  legal proceeding shall be instituted against any person in respect of anything  dine or purported to be done in exercise of the powers   conferred by  the said Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The conferment of such a protection has been assailed on the ground that it virtually provides immunity to persons exercising the powers conferred under Section  4 inasmuch  as it extends the protection also to "anything  purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by  this Act". It has been submitted that adequate protection for  members of  armed  forces  from  arrest  and prosecution is  contained in Sections 45 and 197 Cr.P.C. and that a  separate provision  giving further protection is not called for. If has also been submitted that even if sanction for prosecution  is granted, the person in question would be able to  plead a  statuary defence  in criminal  proceedings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 38  

under Section  76 and  79  of  the  Indian  Peal  Code.  The protection given  under Section 6 cannot, in our opinion, be regarded   as conferment  of  an  immunity  on  the  persons exercising the  powers under the Central Act. Section 6 only gives protection  in the  form of  previous sanction  of the Central Government  before a  criminal prosecution of a suit or other civil proceeding is instituted against such person. In  so   far  as  such  protection  against  prosecution  is concerned, the  provision is  similar to  that contained  in Section 197  Cr.P.C. Which covers an offence alleged to have been  committed   by  a  public  servant  "while  acting  or purporting to  act in  the discharge  of his official duty". Section 6  only extends  this protection  in the  matter  of institution of  a suit or other legal proceeding. In MataJog Dobey v.  H.C. Bhari,  1955 (2)  SCR 925,  the  validity  of Section 197  of the  Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 (which was in  pari materia  with Section  197  of  the  Code    of Criminal Procedure,  1973) was  challenged on  the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was urged that  it   vested  an  absolutely  arbitrary  power  on  the government to grant or withhold sanction at their sweet will and pleasure,  and the  legislature did not lay down or even indicate any  guiding principles  to control the exercise of the discretion.  Negativing the  said contention  this Court observed: "  It has to be borne in mind that a discretionary power is  not necessarily  a discriminatory  power and  that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where  discretion is vested  in the  government and  not in a minor official". [p. 932]  we, therefore,  do  not  find  any  merit  in  the challenge to  the validity  of Section  6. But,  at the same time, we are of the view that since the order of the Central Government refusing or granting the sanction under Section 6 is subject  to judicial review, the Central Government shall pass an order giving reasons.      Before we  conclude the consideration of t he questions regarding the constitutional validity of the Central Act, we may refer  to the  grievance of  the petitioners that  there has been  wide spread  abuse of  powers conferred  under the Central Act  by the personnel of the armed forces while such forces were  deployed in  the areas  declared as ’ disturbed areas’  under   the  Central  Act.  In  the  Writ  Petitions reference has  been made  to a  number  of  instances.  Mrs. Indira Jaising  has also placed before us the reports of the commission of  Inquiry headed  by Shri  Justice D.M.  Sen, a retired Judge  of Gauhati  High Court  in respect of some of those instances.  On behalf  of Union  of India  it has been submitted that  an inquiry  is made  whenever any  complaint about mis-use  of powers  conferred under the Central Act is received and  that on  enquiry most  of the  complaints were found to  be false, and that whenever it is found that there is substance  in the  complaint, suitable  action  has  been taken against  the person  concerned under the provisions of the Army Act. The learned Attorney General has placed before us instructions  in the  from of a list of "Do’s and Don’ts" that are  issued by the Army Headquarters from time to time. The instructions  contained in  the said  list which must be followed while  acting under  Armed Forces (Special Powers ) Act, 1958 are in these terms :-      "LIST  OF  DO’S  AND  DON’TS  WHILE      ACTING UNDER  ARMED FORCES (SPECIAL      POWERS ACT, 1958      Do’s      1. Action before Operation      (a) Act  only in  the area declared      ’Disturbed Area’ under Section 3 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 38  

    the Act.      (b) Power  to open fire using force      or arrest  is to be exercised under      this Act  only by an officer/JCO/WO      and NCO.      (c)    Before     launching     any      raid/search,  definite  information      about the  activity to  be obtained      from the local civil authorities.      (d)  As   far  as  possible  co-opt      representative     of  local  civil      administration during the raid.      2. Action during Operation      (a) In case of necessity of opening      fire and  using any  force  against      the suspect or any person acting in      contravention  to  law  and  order,      ascertain   first    that   it   is      essential for maintenance of public      order. Open  fire  only  after  due      warning.      (b)  Arrest  only  those  who  have      committed cognizable offence or who      are  about   to  commit  cognizable      offence   or    against   whom    a      reasonable ground  exists to  prove      that they  have  committed  or  are      about to  commit cognizable offence      or against whom a reasonable ground      exists  to  prove  that  they  have      committed or  are about  to  commit      cognizable offence.      (c) Ensure that troop under command      do  not   harass  innocent  people,      destroy property  of the  public or      unnecessarily   enter    into   the      house/dwelling   of    people   not      connected   with    any    unlawful      activities.      (d)  Ensure   that  women  are  not      searched/arrested    without    the      presence of  female police. In fact      women should  be searched by female      police only.      3. Action after operation      (a) After  arrest prepare a list of      the persons so arrested.      (b) Handover  the arrested  persons      to the nearest  Police Station with      least possible delay.      (c)  While   handing  over  to  the      police a  report  should  accompany      with     detailed     circumstances      occasioning the arrest.      (d) Every delay in handing over the      suspects  o   the  police  must  be      justified and  should be reasonable      depending upon  the place,  time of      arrest and  the  terrain  in  which      such  person   has  been  arrested.      least possible  delay  may  be  2-3      hours extendable  to 24 hours or so      depending upon  particular case .      (e) After  raid make  out a list of      all arms,  ammunition or  any other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 38  

    incriminating     material/document      taken into possession.      (f)  All   such  arms,  ammunition,      stores, etc.  should be handed over      to the  police State  alongwith the      seizure memo.      (g)  Obtain   receipt  of   persons      arms/ammunition,  stores   etc.  so      handed over to the police.      (h) Make  record of  the area where      operation is  launched  having  the      date  and   time  and  the  persons      participating in such raid.      (i) Make  a record of the commander      and    other     officers/JCOs/NCOs      forming part of such force.      (k) Ensure  medical relief  to  any      person    injured     during    the      encounter, if  any person  dies  in      the  encounter  his  dead  body  be      handed  over   immediately  to  the      police   alongwith    the   details      leading to such death.      4. Dealing with Civil Court      (a)   Diretions    of   the    High      Court/Supreme   Court   should   be      promptly attended to.      (b)  Whenever   summoned   by   the      courts, decorum  of the  court must      be maintained  and  proper  respect      paid.      (c) Answer  questions of  the court      politely ad with dignity.      (d) Maintain detailed record of the      entire  operation   correctly   and      explicitly.      Don’ts      1.  Do  not  keep  a  person  under      custody for  any period longer than      the bare necessity for handing over      to the nearest Police Station.      2.  Do  not  use  any  force  after      having  arrested  a  person  except      when he is trying to escape.      3. Do  not use third degree methods      to  extract   information   or   to      extract   confession    or    other      involvement in unlawful activities.      4. After  arrest of a person by the      member  of  the  Armed  forces,  he      shall not  be interrogated  by  the      member of the Armed force.      5.  Don   not  release  the  person      directly after apprehending on your      own.  If   any  person   is  to  be      released,  he   must  be   released      through civil authorities.      6.  Do  not  temper  with  official      records.      7. The  Armed Forces shall not take      back person after he is handed over      to civil police."      The instructions in the List of "Do’s and Don’ts" which must be  followed while providing aid to the civil authority are as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 38  

    "LIST  OF  DO’S  AND  DON’TS  WHILE      PROVIDING AID TO CIVIL AUTHORITY      DO’S      1.   Act    in   closest   possible      communication      with       civil      authorities throughout.      2. Maintain  inter-communication if      possible by telephone/radio.      3. Get  the  permission/requisition      from the Magistrate when present.      4. Use  the little  force and do as      little   injury   to   person   and      property as  may be consistent with      attainment of objective in view.      5.  In  case  you  decide  to  open      fire:-      (a) Give  warning in local language      that fire will be effective.      (b) Attract attention before firing      by bugle or other means.      (c) Distribute  your  men  in  fire      units with specified Commanders.      (d)   Control   fire   by   issuing      personal orders.      (d)   Control   fire   by   issuing      personal orders.      (d) Note number of rounds fired.      (f)  Aim  at  the  front  of  crowd      actually  rioting  or  inciting  to      riot   or   at   conspicuous   ring      leaders, i.e,  do not fire into the      thick of the crowd at the back.      (g) Aim low and shoot for effect.      (h)  Keep  Light  Machine  Gun  and      medium Gun in reserve.      (i) Cease  firing immediately  once      the  object has been attained.      (j)   Take immediate steps t secure      wounded.      6. Maintain  cordial relations with      civilian   authorities   and   Para      Military Forces.      7.   Ensure    high   standard   of      discipline.      Don’ts      8. Do not use excessive force.      9. Do  not get  involved in hand to      hand struggle with the mob.      10. Do  not ill  treat any  one, in      particular, women and children. 11.      No harassment of civilians.      12. No torture.      13.   No   meddling   in   civilian      administration affairs      14.   No   meddling   in   civilian      administration affairs      15.   No   military   disgrace   by      loss/surrender of weapons.      16.   Do   not   Accept   presents,      donations and rewards      17. Avoid indiscriminate firing."      The learned  Attorney General  has submitted that these instructions provide  an effective  check against any misuse or abuse of the powers conferred under the Central Act on an officer in  the armed  forces inasmuch  as contravention  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 38  

these instructions  is punishable  under Sections 41, 42(e), 63 and 64(f) of the Army Act, 1950.      In State  of Uttar  Pradesh v.  Chandra Mohan  Nigam  & Ors., 1978  (1) SCR  521, this  Court, while considering the validity   of Rule  16(3) of  the All India Services (Death- Cum-Retirement Benefits)  rules, 1958,  which empowered  the Central Government  to compulsorily  retire a  member of the All India  Service, took  note of the instructions issued by the Government and observed :-      "Since rule  16(3) itself  does not      contain any  guidelines, directions      or   criteria,   the   instructions      issued by the Government furnish an      essential  and  salutary  procedure      for   the   purpose   of   securing      uniformity in  application  of  the      rule.  These   instructions  really      fill up  the  yawing  gaps  in  the      provisions and  are embedded in the      conditions of  service.  These  are      binding  on   the  Government   and      cannot be violated to the prejudice      of  the  Government  servant."  [p.      531]      In Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association & Ors. v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 441, one of us, Verma j., as the  learned  Chief  Justice  then  was,  speaking  for  the majority, after  pointing out  that in  actual practice, the real  accountability   in  the  matter  of  appointments  of superior Judges  is of  the Chief  Justice of  India and the Chief Justice  of the  High Courts and not of the executive, has said :-      "If that  is the position in actual      practice  of   the   constitutional      provisions    relating    to    the      appointments   of    the   superior      judges,   wherein   the   executive      itself  holds  out  that  it  gives      primacy to the opinion of the Chief      Justice of India, and in the matter      of accountability also it indicates      t he  primary responsibility of the      Chief Justice  of India,  it stands      to reason  that the actual practice      being  in   conformity   with   the      constitutional scheme,  should also      be  accorded   legal  sanction   by      permissible          constitutional      interpretation." [pp. 694-695]      The instructions  in the  form of  "Do’s and Don’ts" to which reference  has  been  made  by  the  learned  Attorney General have to be treated as binding instructions which are required to  be followed  by the members of the armed forces exercising powers  under the  Central Act and a serious note should be  taken of  violation of  the instructions  and the persons found  responsible  for  such  violation  should  be suitably punished under the Army Act, 1950.      While  considering   the  submissions   assailing   the validity of  clauses (a)  to (d) of Section 4 and Section 5, we have  construed the said provisions as containing certain safeguards against  arbitrary exercise  of  power.  In  this context, reference  may also be made to the order dated July 4, 1991  passed by  this Court  in Civil  Appeal No. 2551 of 1991 wherein,  after taking  note of  the list  of "Do’s and Don’ts" referred-to-above,  this Court  gave  the  following

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 38  

direction :-      "The Army  Officers while effecting      the  arrest   of  woman  or  making      search of woman or in searching the      place in  the actual occupancy of a      female shall  follow the  procedure      meant for  the police  officers  as      contemplated  under   the   various      provisions of  the Code of Criminal      Procedure, namely,  the proviso  to      sub-section (2) of Section 47, sub-      section (2)  of  Section  51,  Sub-      section  (3)  of  Section  100  and      proviso  to   sub-section  (1)   of      section 160 of the Code".      The safeguards  against an arbitrary exercise of powers conferred under  Section 4  and 5 as indicated above as well as  the   said  direction  should  be  incorporated  in  the instructions contained in the list of "Do’s and Dont’s " and the instructions should be suitably amended to bring them in conformity with the guidelines contained in the decisions of this Court in this regard.      In order  that t  he people may feel assured that there is an  effective check  against misuse or abuse of powers by the members  of the  armed forces  it is  necessary  that  a complaint containing  an allegation about misuse or abuse of the  powers  conferred  under  the  Central  Act  should  be thoroughly inquired  into and,  if it  is found hat there is substance in  the allegation,  the victim should be suitably compensated by  the state  and the  requisite sanction under Section  6   of  the  Central  Act  should  be  granted  for institution of  prosecution and/or  a civil  suit  or  other proceeding against  the person/persons  responsible for such violation.      Having dealt  with the  submissions on  the validity of the Central  Act, we  would now  proceed to  deal  with  the submissions on  the validity of the State Act. The challenge is confined  to Section  3 to  6 of the State Act. Section 3 contains the  power to declare an area is a "disturbed area" and is  similar to  Section 3  of the Central Act. Section 4 contains provisions  similar to  those contained  in Section 4(a) of the Central Act, while Section 5 contains provisions similar to  those contained  in Section  4(b) of the Central Act . The only difference is that the powers under Section 4 and 5  of the  State Act  are not conferred on an officer of the armed  forces but  are conferred  on any  Magistrate  or Police Officer  not  below  the  rank  of  Sub-Inspector  or Havildar in  case of  the Armed  Branch of the police or any officer  of   the  Assam   Rifles  not  below  the  rank  of Havildar/Jamadar. The  words "or  any officer  of the  Assam Rifles not  below the  rank of  Havildar/jamadar" have  been struck down  by the  Delhi High  Court in the judgment dated June 3,  1983 on  the view that Assam Rifles are part of the armed forces  of the  Union and the State legislative is not competent to  legislate in  that regard. Since no appeal has been filed  by the  State of  Assam against the said part of the judgment  of the  Delhi High  Court it has become final. Section  6  contains  protection  regarding  institution  of prosecution and a suit or other civil proceeding in the same terms as Section 6 of the Central Act.      The construction  placed by  us on  the  provisions  of Sections 3  and 6  of the  Central Act and the reasons given for upholding  the validity  of the  same equally  apply  to Sections 3  and 6 of the State Act and on the same basis the said provisions of the State Act must be upheld as valid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 38  

    The validity  of Sections  4 and 5 of the State Act has been assailed  by Shri  Goswami on  the ground that they are inconsistent  with  the  central  legislation  on  the  same subject, viz.  Criminal procedure  Code, 1973  and the  Arms Act, 1959  and that  the State Act was, therefore, liable to be struck  down in  view of the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution.  the validity  of Sections 4 and 5 is also assailed by  Shri Goswami  on the  same grounds on which the validity of  Sections 4(a)  and 4(b)  of the Central Act was assailed. The  reasons given  by us  for upholding  the said provisions of  the Central Act would equally apply in so far as the said challenge to the validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the State Act is concerned.      As regards  the submission  of Shri  Goswami  that  the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the State Act are repugnant to the  provisions contained in Cr.P.C. and the Arms Act, it may be  said that  in pith  and substance the State Act is a law enacted  in exercise  of powers under Entry 1 of List II relating to  public order. It is not a law enacted under any of the  entries in  the  Concurrent  List  (List  III).  The question of  invalidity of  the said provisions in the State Act  on   the  ground   of  being  repugnant  to  a  central legislation, e.g., Cr.P.C. enacted under Entry 2 of List III under Article  254 of  the Constitution does not, therefore, arise and  Section 4  and 5  of  the  State  Act  cannot  be assailed on  the ground that the same being repugnant to the provisions  of  Cr.P.C.  are  unconstitutional  in  view  of Article 254  of the  Constitution. The  contention  of  Shri Goswami that the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the State Act are inconsistent with the provisions of Arms Act enacted by Parliament  also cannot  be  accepted  because  the  said provisions only  provide for  effective enforcement  of  the provisions of  the Arms  Act in  the disturbed  areas and it cannot be  said that  they,   in any  way, encroach upon the field covered by the Arms Act. The challenge to the validity of Sections  4  and  5  of  the  State  Act  is,  therefore, negatived.      As noticed  earlier, the  Gauhati  High  Court  in  its judgment dated  March  20,1991  (under  challenge  in  Civil Appeals Nos. 2173-76 of 1991) has directed that notification dated November  27, 1990  issued under  the Central  Act and notification dated  December 7,  1990 issued under the State Act  shall  apply  only  in  respect  of  the  districts  of Dibrugarh,  Tinsukia,  Sibsagar,  Jorhat,  Nagaon,  Dhemaji, Lakhimpur, Sonitpur,  Barrang, Nalbari  and Barpeta and also the City  of Guwahti and shall not apply in the districts of Golaghat, Morigaon, Dhubri, Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Goalpara, Kamrup   (except the city of Guwahati), Karbi Anglong, North Cachar Hills,  Cachar, Karimganj  and Hallakandi.  In taking the said  view the  high Court  has placed  reliance on  the Report sent  by the  Governor Of  Assam to  the President of India wherein  he had expressed the view that the Government of the  State cannot  be carried  on in  accordance with the constitution of  India. On  the basis of the said Report the High  Court   has  held  that  only  certain  districts  are disturbed areas  and since the Central Government has stated that there  is  no  other  material  except  the  Governor’s Report,  there   was  no   justification  to  declare  other districts as  disturbed areas  or any  dangerous  conditions under the  Central Act.  The High Court has, therefore, held that there  the  notifications  shall  not  apply  in  those districts.      The learned  Attorney General  has submitted  that  the High Court  was in  error in  striking down the notification date November  27, 1990  in its  application to  rest of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 38  

districts placing  reliance on the decision of special Bench of this Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 (3) SCC 1, the learned Attorney General has urged hat in exercise of the power  of judicial  review in  respect of a notification issued under Section 3 of the Central Act it was not open to the High  Court to assess the material on the basis of which the Central Government formed the opinion for the purpose of making declaration  under Section  3 of  the Central At. All that the High Court could see is whether the material on the basis of  which the  opinion is  formed is  relevant but the Court could not go into the sufficiency of that material. We find merit  in  the  aforesaid  submission  of  the  learned Attorney General.  We have carefully perused the Report sent by the Governor of Assam. On the basis of the said Report it cannot be  said that  the districts which have been excluded from the  notification by  the High  Court  could    not  be declared as  "disturbed areas" inasmuch as in his Report the Governor has  referred to  the entire State of Assam and has said:-      " Apart  from   killings, according      to reports  received,  many  people      were kidnapped  and released  after      the ransom was paid. The extortion,      to begin  with, was  on  a  limited      scale.  magnitude   of   loot   and      plunder, however,  became  colossal      in due  course of  time, presumably      in view  of the  State Government’s      failure to act."      The  Governor  has  mentioned  that  the  districts  of Tinsukia, Dibrugarh,  Sibsagar, Jorhat  and  Nagaon  on  the South Bank  of Brahmaputra  dn those  of Dhemaji, Lakhimpur, Sonitpur, Darrang,  Nalbari and Barpeda on the North Bank of Brahmaputra are the  worst sufferers. But that does not mean that other  areas were  not affected. In the concluding part of his Report the Governor has said :-      " The Cumulative consequence of all      this is  that the  entire State  is      gripped  by   fear  psychosis.  The      holders of public offices have been      rendered totally  ineffective.  The      statutory  authorities   are  in  a      state   of   panic   incapable   of      discharging  their   function.  The      holders of  constitutional  offices      stand totally  emasculated so  much      so that  the State  Cabinet  cannot      even discuss the situation."      "The loss  of faith in the efficacy      and   the    credibility   of   the      Government   apparatus is  so great      that the  thin distinction  between      ULFA, AASU and AGP which existed at      some    stage,    stands    totally      obliterated. Glooms  hangs over the      whole state.  By the  fall  of  the      dusk, the  people  are  huddled  in      their   homes.    Nobody’s    life,      property or  honour  is  safe.  The      basic attributes of a civilised and      orderly society stand annibilated."      It  cannot,  therefore,  be  said  that  there  was  no material before the Central Government on the basis of which it could form the requisite opinion of the purpose of making a declaration  under Section  3 of  the Central Act covering

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 38  

the entire  State of  Assam. The impugned direction given by the High Court that the notifications dated November 27,1990 issued under Section 3 of the Central Act shall not apply to the districts aforementioned cannot, therefore, be sustained and has to be set aside.      In support  of the  notification dated December 7, 1990 issued under Section 3 of the State Act the State Government had relied  upon the intelligence reports that were received by  the   State  Government   with  regard   to   prevailing conditions. The  High Court  has, however,  struck down  the said   notification    in   relation    to   the   districts aforementioned for  the reason  that the notification issued by the  Central Government  under the  Central Act was being struck  down   in  respect   of  those   districts  and  the notification of  the State  Government  could  not  also  be sustained  in   respect   of   those   districts.   In   the circumstances we  are unable  to uphold the direction of the High Court  [direction  No.  (i)]  that  notification  dated November  27,  1990    issued  under  the  Central  Act  and notification dated  December 7,  1990 issued under the State Act shall  apply not in the districts of Golaghat, Morigaon, Dhubri, Kakrojhar,  Bongaigaon, Goalpara, Kamrup (except the city of Gauhati), Karbi Anglong, North Cachar Hills, Cachar, Karimganj  and  Hailakandi  and  the  said  direction  is  , therefore, set aside.      The High  Court has  also directed [direction No. (ii)] that the  Central Government, under the Central Act, and the State Government,  under the  State Act  should review every calendar month  whether the  two notifications are necessary to be  continued. In the context of Section 3 of the Central Act we  have considered this question and have expressed the view  that such periodic review should take place before the expire of  six months.  The said  requirement for a periodic review would  also apply  to  a  notification  issued  under Section 3  of the  State Act.  In the  circumstances, we are unable to uphold this direction given by the High Court.      The other  direction [direction No. (iii)] given by the High Court  is that  the Central  Government and  the  State Government  should   issue  following  instructions  to  the officers who  have  been  conferred  the  powers  under  the Central Act and State Act :-      (a)  any  person  arrested  by  the      armed forces  or other armed forces      of the  union shall  be handed over      to the  nearest police station with      least   possible   delay   and   be      produced   before    the    nearest      magistrate within 24 hours from the      time of arrest.      (b)  a   person  who   either   had      committed a  cognizable or  against      whom  reasonable  suspicion  exists      such  persons   alone  are   to  be      arrested, innocent  persons are not      to be  arrested and later to give a      clean chit  to  them  as  is  being      ’white’.      The  said   direction  is   in  consonance   with   the construction placed by us on the provisions of Sections 4(c) and 5 of the Central Act and the same is, therefore, upheld. Civil Appeals  Nos. 2173-76  of 1991  have, therefore, to be allowed to  the extent that the directions Nos. (i) and (ii) given by  the High  Court in  the impugned  judgment are set aside.      In the  light of  the above discussion we arrive at the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 38  

following conclusions :-      (1) Parliament  was competent  to enact the Central Act      in exercise  of the  legislative power  conferred on it      under Entry 2 of List I and Article 248 read with Entry      97 of List I. After the insertion of Entry 2A in List I      by the  Forty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, the      legislative power  of Parliament  to enact  the Central      Act flows  from Entry  2A of List I. It is not a law in      respect of  maintenance of  public order  falling under      Entry I of list II.      (2) The expression "in aid of the civil power" in Entry      2A of  List I  and in  Entry 1 of List II  implies that      deployment of  the armed  forces of  the Union shall be      for the  purpose of  enabling the  civil power  in  the      State to  deal with the situation affecting maintenance      of public  order which  has necessitated the deployment      of the armed forces in the State.      (3) The  word "aid"  postulates the continued existence      of the authority to be aided. this would mean that even      after deployment  of the  armed forces  the civil power      will continue to function.      (4) the power to make a law providing for deployment of      the armed forces of the Union in aid of the civil power      of a  State does not include within its ambit the power      to enact  a law  which would enable the armed forces of      the Union  to supplant  or act  as a substitute for the      civil power in the State. The armed forces of the Union      would operate  in the  State concerned  in co-operation      with the  civil administration  so that  the  situation      which has  necessitated the  deployment of armed forces      is effectively dealt with and normalcy is restored.      (5) The  Central Act  does not displace the civil power      of the  state by  the armed  forces of the Union and it      only provides  for deployment  of armed  forces of  the      Union in aid of the Civil Power.      (6) The  Central Act cannot be regarded as a colourable      legislation or a fraud on the Constitution. it is not a      measure  intended   to  achieve   the  same  result  as      contemplated  by  a  Proclamation  of  Emergency  under      Article 352  or a proclamation under Article 356 of the      Constitution.      (7) Section  3 of  the Central  Act does  not confer an      arbitrary or  unguided power  to declare  an area  as a      "disturbed area"  for declaring an area as a "disturbed      area"  under   Section  3  there  must  exist  a  grave      situation of  law and  order on  the basis of which the      Governor/Administrator of  the State/Union Territory of      the Central  Government can  form an  opinion that  the      area is in such a disturbed or dangerous condition that      the use  of the  armed forces in aid of the civil power      is necessary.      (8) A  declaration under  Section 3  has to  be  for  a      limited duration and there should be periodic review of      the declaration before the expiry of six months.      (9) Although  a declaration under Section 3 can be made      by the  Central Government  suo moto without consulting      the concerned  State Government,  but it  is  desirable      that the  State Government  should be  consulted by the      Central Government while making the declaration.      (10) The  conferment of the power to make a declaration      under Section  3 of  the Central Act on the Governor of      the State cannot be regarded as delegation of the power      of the Central Government.      (11) The  conferment of the power to make a declaration      under Section  3 of  the Central  Act  on  the  Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 38  

    Government is  not violative  of the  federal scheme as      envisaged by the Constitution.      (12) The  provisions contained  in Sections 130 and 131      Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as comparable and adequate to      deal with  the situation  requiring the  use  of  armed      forces in  aid of  civil  power  as  envisaged  by  the      Central Act.      (13) The  Powers conferred  under clauses (a) to (d) of      Section 4  and Section  5 of  the Central  Act  on  the      officers  of   the  armed   forces,  including   a  on-      Commissioned Officer are not arbitrary and unreasonable      and are not violative of the provisions of Articles 14,      19 or 21 of the Constitution.      (14) While    exercising  the  powers  conferred  under      Section 4(a)  of the  Central Act,  the officer  in the      armed forces  shall  use  minimal  force  required  for      effective action  against the  person/persons acting in      contravention of the prohibitory order.      (15) A  person  arrested  and  taken  into  custody  in      exercise of  the  powers  under  Section  4(c)  of  the      Central Act  should be  handed over  to the officer-in-      charge  of   the  nearest  police  station  with  least      possible delay  so  that  he  can  be  produced  before      nearest magistrate  within  24  hours  of  such  arrest      excluding the  time taken for journey form the place of      arrest to the court of magistrate.      (16) The property or the arms, ammunitions, etc. seized      during the  course of  search conducted  under  Section      4(d) of the Central Act must be handed over to officer-      in-charge of the nearest police station together with a      report of the circumstances occasioning such search and      seizure.      (17) The  provisions of  Cr.P.C. governing  search  and      seizure have to be followed during the course of search      and  seizure   conducted  in  exercise  of  the  powers      conferred under Section 4(d) of the Central Act.      (18) Section  6 of  the Central  Act in  so far  as  it      confers a discretion on the Central Government to grant      or refuse  sanction for  instituting prosecution  or  a      suit or  proceeding against  any person  in respect  of      anything done  or purported  to be  done in exercise of      the powers  conferred by  the Act  does not suffer from      the vice  of arbitrariness.  Since  the  order  of  the      Central Government  refusing or  granting the  sanction      under Section  6 is  subject to  judicial  review,  the      Central Government shall pass an order giving reasons.      (19)  While   exercising  the  powers  conferred  under      clauses (a)  to (d)  of Section  4 the  officers of the      armed forces  shall strictly  follow  the  instructions      contained in  the list  of "Do’s  and Don’ts" issued by      the army  authorities which  are binding  and any  dis-      ragard to  the said  instructions would entail suitable      action under the Army Act, 1950.      (20) The  instructions contained  in the  list of "Do’s      and Don’ts  " shall  be suitably amended so as to bring      them in conformity with the guidelines contained in the      decisions  of   this  Court   and  to  incorporate  the      safeguards that  are contained in clauses (a) to (d) of      Section 4 and Section 5 of the Central Act as construed      and also  the direction  contained in the order of this      Court dated  July 4,  1991 in  Civil Appeal No. 2551 of      1991.      (21) A  complaint containing an allegation about misuse      or abuse  of the powers conferred under the Central Act      shall be thoroughly inquired into and, if on enquiry it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 38  

    is found  that the  allegations are correct, the victim      should  be   suitably  compensated  and  the  necessary      sanction for  institution of  prosecution and/or a suit      or other  proceeding should  be granted under Section 6      of the Central Act.      (22) The  State Act  is, in pith an substance, a law in      respect of  maintenance  of  public  order  enacted  in      exercise of  the legislative  power  conferred  on  the      State Legislature under Entry 1 of List II.      (23) The Expression "or any officer of the Assam Rifles      not below  the rank of Havildar" occurring in Section 4      and the  expression "or any officer of the Assam Rifles      not below  the rank  of Jamadar"  in Section  5 of  the      State Act have been rightly held to be unconstitutional      by the   Delhi High Court since Assam Rifles are a part      of  the  armed  forces  of  the  Union  and  the  State      Legislature in  exercise of  its power  under Entry  of      List II was not competent to enact a law in relation to      armed forces of the Union.      (24) The  rest of the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of      the State  Act are  not open to challenge under Article      254 of  the Constitution on the ground of repugnance to      the provisions contained in Cr.P.C. and the Arms Act.      (25) The  considerations governing  the exercise of the      powers conferred  under Sections  3 to  6 of he Central      Act indicated  above will  also apply  to  exercise  of      powers conferred  under Sections  3 to  6 of  the State      Act.      (26) The  directions Nos.  (i) and  (ii) given  by  the      Gauhati High Court in its judgment dated March 20, 1991      cannot be sustained and must be set aside.      In the  result, Civil Appeals Nos. 721-24 of 1985 filed against the  judgment of  Delhi High  Court  are  dismissed, Civil  Appeals  Nos.  2173-75  of  1991  filed  against  the judgment of the Gauhati High Court are allowed to the extent indicated above  and Civil  Appeal No.  2551 of  1991  filed against the  said judgment is dismissed. Writ petitions Nos. 550 of  1982, 5328  of 1980, 9229-30 of 1982 and 13644-45 of 1984 will  stand disposed  of in  terms of this judgment. No order as to costs.