HABEEB MOHAMED versus THE STATE OF HYDERABAD

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 661 · Decided: 30-03-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
661 
any such limitations Government is, subject to the 
1958 
qualification mentioned above, as free to make special 8 . h-C d 
. 
. 
atis 
han ra 
contracts of service with temporary employees, engag-
Anand 
ed in works of a temporary nature, as any other 
v. 
employer. 
The Union of 
Various matters .relating to the merits·of the case 
India. 
were referred to but we express no opinion about 
Bo" J. 
whether the petitioner has other rights which he can 
enforce in other ways. 
We are dealing here with a 
writ under article 32 to enforce a fundamental right 
and the only point we decide is that no fundamental 
right bas been infringed. 
When the matter was first argued we had decided 
not to make any order about costs but now that the 
petitioner has persisted in reopening the case and 
calling the learned Attorney-General here for a 
second time, we have no alternative but to dismiss 
the petition with costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
Agent for the petitioner: Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha . 
• 
HABF,.EB MOHAMED 
·v. • 
·rHE STA'rE OF HYDERABAD. 
[PATAl\JALI SAS1'RI C.J., MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS, 
Gm;LAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 13, 14-Hyderabad Regula· 
tion X of 1359 F.-Trial by special jwlqe under Reg•tlation X after 
26th January, 1950-Provisions of Regulation different from Cri-
minal Procedure Code-Equal protection of the· law - Validity of 
trial-Tests of validity-Effect of cu.rtailment of committal proceed· 
ings and of right to transfer, revision, confinnation of death sentence. 
In determining the validity or otherwise of a pre.Constitution 
statute on the ground of any of its provisions being repugnant to 
the equal protection clause of the Constitution, two principles 
86 
1953 
March 30. 
1953 
HabMb 
Mohamed 
v. 
The State of 
Hyderabad. 
66'2 
SUPREME COCR'l' REPOR'l'S 
[1953] 
have to be borne in mind. Firstly, the clause bas no retrospective 
effect and even if the law is in any sense discriminatory, it must 
be held to be valid for all past transactions and for enforcement 
of rights and liabilities accrued before the coming into force of tho 
Constitution. Secondly, Art. 13 (l) of the Constitution doeg not 
necessarily make the whole statut~ innlid even after the advent 
of the Constitution. It invalidates ·only those provisions which 
are inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under 
Part III of the Constitution . 
• 
Further, the fact that trial was continued even after 26th 
January, 1950, under the earlier Regulation which is in some res. 
pacts discriminatory would not necessarily render the subsequent 
proceedings invalid. All that the accused could claim is that what 
remains of the trial must not duviate from the normal standard 
in material respects, so as to amount to a denial of the equal pro· 
tection of laws within the meaning of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
For the purpose of determining whether the accused was deprived 
of such protection, the Court has to see first of all whether after 
eliminating the discriminatory provisions in the Regulation, it 
was still possible to secure to the accused substantially the bene-
fits of a trial under the ordinary law.; and if so, whether that was 
actually done in the particular case. 
On the 5th January, 1950, ~he case of the accused who was 
·charge.cl with murder, arson, ricting and other offences which was 
pending before a Special Tribunal was made over to a Special 
.Tudge in pursuance of the provieions of the Hyderabad Regulation 
X of 1359 F., which abolished t.1e Special Tribunal Regulation o_f 
1949. The trial commenced on the 11th February, 1950, after the 
ne\V Constitution came into force and the ·accused was convicted 
and sentenced to death. His appeal was dismissed and the sentence 
of death was ultimately atmfirmed by the High Court. It was 
contended that the entire trial was il)Jlgal inasmuch as the Regu-
lation under which the accused, was tried contained several 
provisions which were in coafiict with the equal -protection clause 
(Art. 14) of the Constitution and became void after the 26th 
January, 1950. 
Held, (1) The provisions in the Regulation eliminating commit-
tal proceedings and substituting the warrant procedure for sessions 
procedure in the trial of offences did not render the trial illegal as 
the committal proceeding was r:ot an indispensable preliminary to 
a sessions trial under the Hyderabad Criminal

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