ABDUL AZIZ versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 21-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

r .. 
ABDULAZIZ 
A 
v 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
JULY 21, 1995 
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
TelTodst and Dis1Uptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Section 1(4)-Held valid-Classification of accuse~Those commit-
ting offences p1ior to and after expiry of Act-Held not Unconstitutional-Pro-
C 
cedure presC1ibed under TADA held not disC1iminat01y-Continuance of trial 
after expiry of Act-Held not unconstitutional in view of the saving clause. 
TADA-Bia5"-Designated Judge-Writing Arlicle in State Magazine-
Providing transp01t by Police to Judge and family for ensuring safety during 
hearing of case-Held bias is not discemible per se. 
D 
In this writ petition is the Constitutional validity of the provisions 
of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 par-
ticularly the provisions of section 1(4) are challenged on the ground that 
(i) the Act having expired the provisions for continuing the trial are E 
illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21; (ii) subjecting TADA accused 
to a different procedure of trial at the discretion of authorities is 
unconstitutional; (iii) the classification of offenders i.e. between those 
who committed offences prior to and after expiry of the Act is dis-
criminatory; (iv) from article written by the Designate Judge in the State F 
Magazine it was evident that he entertains a biased mind against TADA 
accused; and (v) the Designate Judge was obliged to police because the 
latter had provided cars for use of Judge and his family. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
Held : 1. In Gopi Chand's case this Court specifically noted that 
in the absence of the saving clause in the Act the trial which may 
commence for the offences under the said Act, would not be held valid 
thereafter. But in the instant case a specific saving clause has been 
G 
provided in the Act itself. [301-D] 
H 
299 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
*Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration, [1959] Supp. 2 SCR 87, distin-
B 
guished. 
2. In the instant case the Parliament has prescribed the procedure for 
deciding the case under TADA Act. Hence, no discretionary option is left to 
the State Government to choose the procedure for trial. The Parliament 
itself by enacting Section 1 ( 4) has been made a clear distinction between the 
two classes of offenders - (1) those offenders who have committed offences 
when the Act was in force and (2) persons who are not offenders under the 
Act at all as their activities take place after the expiry of the Act. These two 
classes of persons cannot be treated at par. Consequently, no fault can be 
C 
found with Section 1(4) of the Act on that score. [302-B, E-F] 
D 
Kmtar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994] 3 SCC 569, referred to. 
State of West Bengal v.Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR (1952) SC 284, distin-
guished. 
3. It does not appear that any biased view about the accused in a 
TADA Act case is discernible from the article which has been written in 
an objective way. [302-H] 
4. If for ensuring security of the Judge and the members of his family 
E 
when the Judge is hearing some sensitive cases under TADA Act, the police 
has. provided for transport to the Judge and his family members, such 
supply of car per se cannot be held to be illegal and one would not be 
inclined to proceed on the footing that the Judge will beJJia~ against the 
petitioner and will be included to obliged the police. [303-B] 
F 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL) 
No. 413 of 1995. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
G. Ramaswamy, N.R. Choudhury and Somnath Mukherjee, for the 
G Petitioners. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Satis Vig and Rajeev Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
In this application under Article 32 of the Constitution the constitu-
,. 
ABDULAZIZ v. STATE OFW.B. 
301 
tional validity of the provisions of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities A 
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as the TADA Act,), 
particularly the provisions of Section 1 ( 4) of the Act are sought to be 
challenged mainly on the ground that the Act having expired th~ provisions 
for continuing the trial under the said Act is illegal and it has been 
contended that this provision violates articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. B 
Mr. Ramaswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the 
application, has submitted that in the Constitution Bench decision 
rendered in Kmtar Singh v. State of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.