KATHI RANING RAWAT V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA AIR 1952 SC 123

KATHI RANING RAWAT V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA AIR 1952 SC 123


FACTS

Kathi Raning Rawat was convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to death and to seven years’ RI, sentences to run concurrently. He was tried by a Special Court constituted under the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance 66 of 1949), which was issued by the Rajpramukh of Saurashtra on 2nd November, 1949, and his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the State High Court. Accordingly he filed an appeal against the decision of the High court.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflected whether the appeal is whether the Ordinance to which reference has been made is void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution on the ground that it violates the provisions of Article 14.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. In the Anwar Ali case, it was held that the executive had uncontrolled authority to discriminate and the necessity of a speedier trial was held to be too vague and uncertain and indefinite criterion to form the basis of a valid and reasonable classification. Whereas in the current case, it was held that the provision similar to the Anwar Ali case was held valid because the court found that a policy was stated within the preamble of the act and the government was required to select such offences, classes of offences and classes of cases for trial in special courts.
2. It was further observed by this Hon'ble court that in the Saurashtra Law, the provision to pick out any individual case for the trial of the trial of a special court was held to be invalid and discriminatory. The government could specify a class of cases or offences or persons for trial of the special court but it couldn't claim power to send a single specific case out of a class to a special court for trial. Another important difference between the Anwar case and the current case was that the preamble to the current case was more elaborately worded.
3. This Hon'ble court examined Section 11, Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (3rd Amendment) Ordinance, 1949, (which also authorised trial in Special Courts of offences, classes of offences, cases and classes of cases) which the State Government directed to be tried by the special courts constituted under the ordinance. The majority held that the Preamble to the ordinance which referred to the need to provide for public safety, maintenance of public order and the preservation of peace and tranquillity in the State of Saurashtra together with the affidavit filed by the State Government, explaining the circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, afforded a basis for distinguishing this case from the Anwar Ali Sarkar case since it was clear that the government had sufficient guidance for classifying offences, classes of offences or classes of cases to be tried by the special procedure.
4. Therefore, Section 11 of the ordinance insofar as it authorised the State Government to direct offences, classes of offences or classes of cases to be tried by the Special Court was not violative of Article 14. While in the former notification was issued under that part of Section 5(1), West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 which authorised the government to direct cases to be tried by the Special Court, in the latter it was issued under that part of Section 1, Saurashtra Ordinance which authorised the State Government to direct offences, classes of offences or classes of cases to be tried by the Special Court.