http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: A.R. ANTULAY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.S. NAIK & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/10/1986

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 1140            1987 SCR  (1)  91  1986 SCC  Supl.  510     JT 1986   759  1986 SCALE  (2)703

ACT:  Supreme Court Rules, 1966 Order XVI read.     With Order XXLVII--Revocation of special  leave--Whether an application for revocation of special leave can be grant- ed  by the Supreme Court when in a case in the  presence  of the  counsel for the respondents and after hearing his  sub- missions the said special leave was granted.

HEADNOTE:     HELD:  Having regard to the various aspects of the  case and  the important points of law which arise for  considera- tion  the  petition to revoke the special  leave  cannot  be granted. Further the special leave, was granted by the Court in the presence of the counsel for the respondents and after hearing his submissions. The petition has not only culminat- ed  in criminal appeal but the very same counsel has made  a request  that the case should be referred to a  Constitution Bench’ [92B, 91H]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal  Miscellaneous Petition No. 4248 of 1986 IN Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1986     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  24.7.1986  of  the Bombay High Court in special Case No. 24 of 1982. Ram Jethmalani and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Appellant.     P.P.  Rao, R.S. Desai, M.N. Shroff, A.M. Khanwilkar  and Bhasme for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered:     The Special-leave was granted by this court in this case in  the presence of the learned counsel for the  respondents and after hearing submissions. Today we axe asked to  revoke the leave already 92 granted by us. We have considered the points urged before us in support of the application for revocation. We do not find any  ground to revoke the special leave already  granted  by us.  Shri  Jethmalani learned counsel  for  the  respondents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

reiterates  his  request which he had made on  the  date  on which  the Special leave was granted, namely that this  case should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Having regard to the various aspects of this case and the points which  arise for  consideration which. we have recorded in the form of  a note  which  forms part of this order, we  agree  with  Shri Jethmalani  that  this case should be referred to  a  larger bench. We accordingly direct that this case should be listed for hearing before a bench of 7 Judges of this Court. Liber- ty  to mention for early hearing. The papers may  be  placed before  the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India  for  further directions regarding Constitution of the Bench. The prayer for vacating the stay is rejected. NOTE APPENDED     A  private complaint was first heard by Shri  R.B.  Sule who  had been appointed as a Special Judge under  section  6 (1)  of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 by the  Govern- ment  of Maharashtra. The said Special Judge discharged  the accused  on the ground that there was no valid  sanction  to institute the complaint.     The  correctness of the said Order of the Special  Judge was  challanged  before  this Court by  the  Complainant  in appeal.  That appeal was allowed and the order of  discharge passed  by the Special Judge was set aside on  February  16, 1984. ,     The operative part of the judgment of this Court (R.  S. Nayak  v. A.R. Antulay, [1984] S.C.R. 495) is found at  page 557 of the Report. It reads thus:               "This  appeal  accordingly  succeeds  and   is               allowed.  The  ’order  and  decision  of   the               learned  Special  Judge Shri R.B.  Sule  dated               July  25,  1983  discharging  the  accused  in               Special  Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special  Case               No.  3/83  is hereby set aside and  the  trial               shall proceed further from the stage where the               accused was discharged.                         The  accused was the Chief  Minister               of a premier State--the State of  Maharashtra.               By a prosecution laun-               93               ched  as early as on September 11,  1981,  his               character  and integrity came under  a  cloud.               Nearly 21/2 years have rolled by and the  case               has not moved an inch further. An  expeditious               trial  is  primarily in the  interest  of  the               accused and a mandate of Art. 21.  Expeditious               disposal of a criminal case is in the interest               of  both  the  prosecution  and  the  accused.               Therefore,  special  Case No. 24 of  1982  and               Special Case No. 3/83 pending in the Court  of               Special  Judge, Greater Bombay shri R.B.  Sule               are  withdrawn  and transferred  to  the  High               Court of Bombay with a request to the  learned               Chief  Justice to assign these two cases to  a               sitting  Judge of the High Court. On being  so               assigned,  the  learned Judge may  proceed  to               expeditiously dispose of the cases  preferably               by holding the trial from day to day." In this case the following points arise for consideration:                 1.  If  an order of transfer of  a  criminal               case which purports to violate Article 14  and               Article 21 is passed against an accused person               by this Court without any pleading or  hearing               or even consulting his wishes in that  regard,               can  he  not  question it  by  an  independent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

             petition  since  a review is not  an  adequate               remedy  because  the petitioner  in  a  review               petition  (which  by its very nature is  of  a               restricted character) has no right of personal               hearing  at  the  stage of  admission  of  the               review petition?                 2.  Under  the Criminal Law  Amendment  Act,               1952 an offence punishable under section 5  of               the  Prevention  of Corruption  Act  or  under               sections  161,162, 163, 164, 165 and  165A  of               the  Indian Penal Code can be tried only by  a               Special  Judge  appointed under section  6  of               that Act by the State Government. An order  of               transfer by this Court cannot be a  substitute               for an order of appointment to be made by  the               State Government under section 6 of that  Act.               In Gurucharandas Chadha v. State of Rajasthan,               [1966]  2 S.C.R. 678 it is laid down that  the               trial  by a special Judge is the sine qua  non               of  a trial under that Act and a case  can  be               transferred  by  this Court from  one  Special               Judge  to  another Special  Judge  only.  That               means that all other courts including the High               Court  are  excluded. In Bhajahari  Mondal  v.               State of West Bengal, [1959] S.C.R. 1276 it is               held that the trial               94               by a Judge who is not authorised to try a case               amounts  to  an incurable illegality  and  the               trial  would  be a nullity. In view  of  these               decisions  can the trial in this case  proceed               before a High Court Judge who is not a Special               Judge?  It may be noted that section  7(1)  of               the  Criminal  Law Amendment Act,  1952  which               opens with a nonobstante clause prevails  upon               every provision in the Criminal Procedure Code               including sections 406 and 407 which deal with               the  powers  of  transfer  of  criminal  cases               exercisable by the Supreme Court and the  High               Court respectively and upon every other law in               force. Does not the order of transfer in  this               case deny the right of the accused to be tried               according to the procedure established by  law               and is not Article 21 violated thereby?                    3. Has the accused in this case a  remedy               by way of appeal as of right under the  Crimi-               nal  Procedure  Code? There appears  to  be  a               reasonable doubt in this case because  section               374(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973               provides for an appeal to this Court against a               conviction by a High Court under its  extraor-               dinary original criminal jurisdiction.  Clause               24  of the Letters Patent of the  Bombay  High               Court  which  confers  extraordinary  original               criminal jurisdiction on the High Court refers               only to cases brought before the High Court by               the  Advocate General, any Magistrate  or  any               other officer specially empowered by the  Gov-               ernment  in  that  behalf. But  this  case  is               brought  by  a  private person.  If  it  fails               outside  clause 24 of the Letters Patent,  the               accused  will have perhaps a remedy of  appeal               by  way of special leave of this  Court  under               Article  136  of the Constitution.  Denial  of               even  one  appeal as of right  may  amount  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             violation of Article 14 arid Article 21.  Does               not this question require examination?                    4.  The Criminal law Amendment Act,  1952               as its preamble says is passed to provide  for               speedier  trial? Does not further speeding  up               of  the case by transferring the case  of  the               High  Court  for speedy disposal  violate  the               principle laid down by seven learned Judges of               this  Court in Anwar Ali Sarkar’s case  [1952]               S.C.R. 284 and result in violation of  Article               14 of the Constitution? The following observa-               tions of Vivian Bose, J. in Anwar Ali Sarkar’s               95               case at pages 366-367 of the Report are  rele-               vant:               "Tested in the light of these  considerations,               I  am  of opinion that the whole of  the  West               Bengal Special Courts Act of 1950 offends  the               provisions of article 14 and is therefore bad.               When  the froth and the foam of discussion  is               cleared away and learned dialectics placed  on               one  side, we reach at last the human  element               which to my mind is the most important of all.               We  find men accused of heinous crimes  called               upon to answer for their lives and  liberties.               We  find them picked out from  their  fellows,               and  however much the new procedure  may  give               them  a few crumbs of advantage, in  the  bulk               they are deprived of substantial and  valuable               privileges of defence which others,  similarly               charged, are able to claim. It matters not  to               me, nor indeed to them and their families  and               their  friends, whether this be done  in  good               faith, whether it be done for the  convenience               of  government.  whether the  process  can  be               scientifically.  classified and  labelled,  or               whether it is an experiment in speedier trials               made  for  the good of society  at  large.  It               matters not how lofty and laudable the motives               are.  The question with which I charge  myself               is, can fair-minded, reasonable, unbiassed and               resolute men, who are not swayed by emotion or               prejudice,  regard  this with  equanimity  and               call  it reasonable, just and fair, regard  it               as that equal treatment and protection in  the               defence  of liberties which is expected  of  a               sovereign  democratic republic in  the  condi-               tions which obtain in India today? I have  but               one  answer to that. On that short and  simple               ground  I would decide this case and hold  the               Act bad."               (underlining by us) Do not the above observations apply to judicial orders also?               If under the American Constitution a  prisoner               can challange successfully a conviction  which               has  become final on the ground of  contraven-               tion  of the Vlth Amendment even after  he  is               sent  to  jail, by  an  independent  petition,               (vide  Gideon’s case 372 U.S. 335)  cannot  an               Indian citizen who had not been heard by  this               Court on the question of transfer complain  by               an  independent  petition  before  this  Court               before the commencement of               96               the  trial that his fundamental  rights  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             Article 14- and Article 21 are being  violated               even  though  he may have a remedy  of  a  re-               stricted character like a review petition  and               ask  for  a writ of  prohibition  against  the               trial Judge’?                    6. Does the degree of heinousness of  the               crime with which an accused is charged or  his               status  or the influence that he  commands  in               society have any bearing on the  applicability               or  the construction of Article 14 or  Article               21?                    7.  If a decision of this Court is  given               per incuriam, that is, without taking note  of               the  appropriate  legal  provisions  can  that               decision be treated as a binding precedent? Is               it  not a circumstance in jurisprudence  which               entitles  a  Court to  disregard  and  earlier               judicial precedent?               (See Salmond’s Jurisprudence (Eleventh Edn. P.               203).                     8. We find that even when the accused in               this case brought to the notice of this  Court               (before a Bench presided over by the Judge who               delivered  the judgment), the accused was  not               given  relief. He was asked to file  a  review               petition which is restricted in character  and               where  he would have no right of oral  heating               at the stage of admission or to file any other               application which he may be entitled in law to               file. In that situation. what is wrong in  the               accused  who apprehends that a trial is  going               on  against  him contrary to the law  and  the               Constitution  without giving him a  reasonable               opportunity of being heard personally on  that               question as every other litigant in this Court               is  given except in review petitions,  raising               the  question before the Judge who  is  trying               him  or in an appeal filed before  this  Court               against the order of the Trial Judge?                     9.  Could  the High Court not  have  re-               quested  the  State Government  to  appoint  a               Judge of the High Court as a Special Judge  in               order  to  implement  the  direction  of  this               Court? If this was possible, both the order of               transfer passed by this Court and the Criminal               Law Amendment Act, 1952 could have been satis-               fied  by the issue of the necessary  notifica-               tion by the Sate Government. If this               97               was possible, the accused can always raise the               objection  to the trial of the case  before  a               Judge of the High Court until the notification               is issued by the Government appointing him  as               a Special Judge, without in any way  question-               ing  the binding nature of the order  of  this               Court,  because  while the order  of  transfer               takes care of the territorial jurisdiction  of               the Trial Judge, a notification issued by  the               Government  would confer the necessary  compe-               tence on the Judge concerned. It may be  noted               that  in Chadha’s (supra) this Court has  made               this   distinction  between  the   territorial               jurisdiction  and the competence of the  trial               court.                    There  is another point to be  considered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             in this context. Section 6(2) of the  Criminal               Law  Amendment  Act, 1952 says that  a  person               shall  not be qualified for appointment  as  a               Special  Judge under that Act unless he is  or               has  been  a Sessions Judge or  an  Additional               Sessions Judge, or an Assistant Sessions Judge               under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even  if               the State Government wishes to appoint a  High               Court  judge  as a Special Judge it  can  only               appoint such Judge who has filled any of these               offices  under  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code               earlier.  Justice P.S. Shah who is now  trying               the  case was only a member of the Bar  before               he became a High Court Judge.               10. In recent times Article 21 is being inter-               preted  liberally  and is  being  extended  to               issues which were not considered to be  within               the  scope  of Article 21. Does  that  Article               not, therfore, apply with greater force in the               case  of those persons, i.e., persons  accused               of  criminal offences, for whom  that  Article               was primarily intended?               11. Question of Judicial discipline:  Recently               the  question  of constitutional  validity  of               certain  provisions of the Punjab  Pre-emption               Act,  1913 as in force in Haryana came up  for               consideration  before a Division Bench of  two               Judges  (E.S.  Venkataramiah and  R.B.  Misra,               JJ)It  was noticed by the Division Bench  that               the  said  provisions  had been  upheld  by  a               Constitution  Bench  in Ram Sarup  v.  Munshi,               [1963]  3 S.C.R. 858. The Division Bench  felt               that the decision in Ram Sarup’s case               98               (supra) was erroneous and needed  reconsidera-               tion. It accordingly admitted the case, issued               stay  orders  and  referred the  matter  to  a               larger  Bench. Thereupon another  Constitution               Bench  of five Judges accepted the  reference,               overruled the view of the another Constitution               Bench and declared the impunged provisions  as               unconstitutional.  (See Atam Prakash v.  State               of  Haryana, [1986] 2 S.C.C. 249).  In  almost               all the cases references to larger Benches are               made  by  smaller Benches  where  the  smaller               Benches do not agree with the view of a larger               Bench  expressed  earlier. It  was  a  smaller               Bench  which  doubted  the  view  in  Shankari               Prasad’s  case [1952] S.C.R. 89 and in  Sajjan               Singh’s case [1965] I S.C.R. 938 that referred               the case to a larger Bench which decided Golak               Nath’s case [1967] 2 S.C.R. 762. It was  again               a  smaller Bench which did not agree with  the               decision in Golaknath’s case that referred the               case  to  a  larger Bench  which  decided  the               Keshvananda Bharati’s case [1973] Supp. S.C.R.               1  which  overruled Golaknath’s case.  In  all               such cases the smaller Banches had entertained               the  petitions and passed appropriate  interim               orders.  In view of what is stated above,  can               it  be  said that in this  case  the  DiVision               Bench  which  having  regard  to  the  various               constitutional  issues involved in  it  merely               granted Special Leave to Appeal and issued  an               interim  order of stay had violated  rules  of

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

             judicial  discipline? Even if all  the  issues               are to be held against the appellant ultimate-               ly  after hearing the appeal until that  deci-               sion is given by this Court, is it not reason-               able  to  stay the trial pending  disposal  of               this appeal?                    12.  If  ultimately it is found  in  this               that  the  proceedings before the  High  Court               consequent upon the order of transfer are  not               constitutional,  what  is the effect  of  that               decision  on  all the proceedings  which  have               gone  on  till now in the High Court  and  the               decisions  of  this Court  passed  in  appeals               against the orders of the High Court passed at               different stages in these proceedings? 99