Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Aziz, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, particularly Section 1(4), and sought to stop the continuing trial before a Designated Court. The respondent was the State of West Bengal. The TADA Act had expired, but trial against the petitioner continued under Section 1(4), which is a saving clause. The petitioner contended that continuation after expiry was illegal and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He also alleged bias of the Designated Court judge because the judge had written an article in a Government of West Bengal magazine and because police provided cars to the judge and his family. The application for recusal was rejected by the Designated Court. The main legal issues were whether Section 1(4) validly permitted trial after expiry of the Act; whether the classification and procedure under TADA Act violated Articles 14 and 21; whether Section 1(4) created hostile discrimination between offenders before and after expiry; and whether the judge was biased. Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ramaswamy, relied on Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration to argue that without a saving clause trial cannot continue; the Court distinguished because TADA Act has an explicit saving clause. He relied on State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar to argue discretionary procedure unconstitutional; the Court found Parliament prescribed the procedure, leaving no executive discretion. He argued hostile discrimination; the Court held classification between offenders during the Act and persons acting after expiry was valid because the two classes are not similarly situated. On bias, the Court examined the article and found it an objective analysis of TADA provisions, and car provision for security per se not illegal, thus no bias established. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit. It upheld the constitutional validity of Section 1(4) and the continuation of trial, and found no bias of the Designated Court judge.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Saving Clause - Continuation of Trial after Expiry - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 1(4) - Petitioner challenged continuation of trial after expiry of TADA Act citing Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration where absence of saving clause invalidated trial; Court distinguished as TADA Act contains specific saving clause in Section 1(4) and hence trial valid - Held that specific saving clause allows continuation of prosecution after expiry (Paras 1-2). B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 and 21 - Validity of Classification and Procedure - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15; Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 - Petitioner relied on Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab to argue Section 15 oppressive and discriminatory; Court noted majority in Kartar Singh upheld vires of TADA Act and classification of terrorists as separate class - Held that classification is reasonable and valid under Article 14 - (Paras 2-3). C) Constitutional Law - Executive Discretion - Procedure for Trial - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 1(4); Constitution of India, Article 14 - Petitioner relied on State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar to contend State Government had discretion in choice of procedure; Court found Parliament prescribed procedure leaving no discretion to State - Held that Anwar Ali Sarkar not applicable and no unconstitutional discretion (Paras 3-4). D) Constitutional Law - Hostile Discrimination - Classification Based on Time of Offence - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 1(4); Constitution of India, Article 14 - Petitioner argued Section 1(4) discriminates between offenders before and after expiry of Act; Court held Parliament created clear distinction between two classes of persons not similarly situated - Held that no hostile discrimination and Section 1(4) valid (Paras 4-5). E) Criminal Procedure - Judicial Bias - Allegation Against Designated Court Judge - General principles of fair trial under Constitution of India, Article 21 - Petitioner alleged bias because judge wrote article in Government magazine and police provided cars; Court examined article found objective analysis, and car for security not per se illegal - Held that no bias discernible and petition dismissed (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 1(4) of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is constitutionally valid and permits trial to continue after expiry of the Act; whether the classification and procedure under the Act violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; whether the Designated Court Judge is biased against the petitioner.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; no merit found; constitutional challenge to Section 1(4) of TADA Act rejected; bias allegation not established.
Law Points
- Specific saving clause in TADA Act allows continuation of trial after expiry
- classification of offences under TADA Act is reasonable and does not violate Articles 14 and 21
- Parliament-prescribed procedure under TADA Act leaves no discretion to State Government
- distinction between offenders during Act and future acts is valid
- judicial bias not established by objective article or police transport.
