Nithyakalyani Narayanan
CASE NAME – A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak
CITATION – AIR 1988 SC 1531
DECIDED ON – 29 April 1988.
CORAM – Sabyasachi Mukherjee, G. L. Oza, M. N. Venkatachaliah, Ranganath Misra, JJ., B. C. Ray, S. Natarajan, S. Ranganathan
PETITIONER – A. R. Antulay
RESPONDENT – R. S. Nayak
PROVISIONS INVOLVED – Sections 374, 406 & 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 161- 165 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Articles 13, 14, 21, 32, 134, 136, 139, 141, 142 of the Constitution of India.
INTRODUCTION
The case was a landmark judgment as it stated the corruption cases that are triable by a special judge, cannot be transferred to a High Court judge for a hearing. After the judgment of this case, many legal academics pointed out how the legal system of India is restricted by the limitations of human foresight. In the famous Sahara’s case, the court stated this case to be of irrelevant precedent and the judgment must be cited as a precedent, only when confined to the facts and circumstances of the cases.
FACTS IN BRIEF
A.R. Antulay, the petitioner, was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra since June 1980. On September 1, 1981, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party approached the Governor of Maharashtra under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, requesting the approval to bring a suit against the minister. R. S. Nayak, the respondent, also filed a complaint to the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay against the appellant and others for offenses under Section 161, 165, 384, and 420 read with Sections 109 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947. The Magistrate did not accept the notice without the approval for prosecution. A revision was filed in the Bombay High Court. The allegations against A. R. Antulay regarding abuse of power and after the judgment released by the Bombay High Court led to him resigning his position as Chief Minister of Maharashtra in 1982.
A new complaint was filed before the Special Judge, P. S. Bhutta, with more accusations including those rejected by the Governor. The Judge issued a process to the petitioner without depending on the sanction order given by the Governor. On 28th October 1982, Judge Bhutta dismissed the appellant’s objection about the jurisdiction and ordered for three Special Judges of that area to hear such cases. The State Government appointed R. B. Sule as a Special Judge. The Special judge discharged the petitioner stating that a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) is a Public Servant and there was no valid sanction to bring legal proceedings against him.
On February 16, 1984, an appeal was filed under Article 136 of the Constitution and the bench of the Apex Court held that the MLA is not a public servant and revoked the previous order of the Special Judge. Instead of returning the case to a Special judge for disposing of it as per the law, the Supreme Court suo moto withdrew the special case from the court of a Special judge and assigned it to the Bombay High Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the directions that were given by the honourable Court in February 1984, breach Section 7 (1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952?
- Whether the decision is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
ARGUMENTS RAISED FROM THE SIDE OF THE PETITIONER
- The appellant Counsel stated that the petitioner was not treated equally and was not given the opportunity for any arguments to be submitted before the Court of law which is violating his Fundamental Right mentioned under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The petitioner pointed out his Fundamental right to trial by a Special Judge as per Article 21 of the Constitution.
- The party brought up that the basics of the administration of justice i.e., no man should suffer because of court and no man should suffer a wrong due to the technical procedure of irregularity, was breached.
- It was also pointed out by the petitioner that he has lost two major Rights, namely, the Right of Revision to the High Court under Section 9 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 and the Right to Move the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
ARGUMENTS RAISED FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent argued that the withdrawal of the case from Special Judge as per the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, by the Bombay High Court under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was possible under appropriate situations.
- The respondent Counsel stated that the transfer of the case was announced without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present his pleadings, which is not appropriate. The plaintiff before the order was signed or after the directions were given could have submitted his allegations through his counsel. Thus, it is not illegal, and the petitioner is the one who did not use the opportunity.
- They stated that the superior court did have the jurisdiction. The court cannot be made liable for such claims unless it has acted coram non judice.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The seven-judge bench was given a verdict in favour of the appellant in a 4:3 proportion. It was said that the judgment released in 1984 was unjust, illegal and unconstitutional as per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution since the appellant’s right to use appellate remedy was restricted. The court declared that the transfer of criminal cases and the Apex Court to transfer cases and appeals are given under Section 406 of CrPC. The law states that the court may direct any specific case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a subordinate Criminal Court to a High Court or a subordinate Criminal Court to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or upper-level jurisdiction to another High Court. Section 407 of the CrPC deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases.
Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 states that the State Government may appoint as many Special Judges as needed for a particular area for a specified offence. Section 7 of the Act focuses on the triable by Special Judges. The question here is whether the transfer made by the Court is valid or not. Section 7 (1) of the Act states a condition for the trial of offenders as per Section 6 (1) of the Act. It means that the offences under Section 6 (1) of the Act are punishable under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the order of the court to transfer cases to the high court is not permitted by law. The Apex Court through its directions cannot advise the High Court to take cases that are not under its jurisdiction.
The Apex Court evidently does not have the jurisdiction to transfer cases to itself. Only the Parliament by law has the power to create or increase such jurisdiction power and no other superior or inferior Court has that power. In this case, the petitioner has been treated differently from other wrongdoers. He has the right to be not separated to use the special court for his purpose. All these come under Article 14 of the Constitution, i.e., the Right to Equality. The petitioner has the right to take a trial by a Special Judge under Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952 which was established by law and the petitioner has the right to not suffer because of any order passed by the Court in violation of natural justice as per Article 21 of the Constitution.
A particular clause of a specific regulation is given for trial by a Special Judge alone and the transfer of such cases can be done by one judge to another special judge. The High Court does not have the power to transfer such cases as per Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. Thus, it is evident that the provision under Section 7 (2) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution have been breached and legally wrong as per the directions given by the Court.