J. JAYALALITHA ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
J. JAY ALALITHA ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 14, 1999 
(G.T. NANAVATI AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), S.3-Constitution of India, 
Articles 14 and 21-Notification issued by State government establishing 
three additional Sessions Court at Chennai and appointing Judges of those 
courts as Special judges to try exclusively cases of corruption against former C 
Chief Minister and other ministers-Challenged on ground that neither the 
Act nor S.3 disclosed any policy for deciding when a special judge could be 
appointed-Held, provisions sufficiently indicate the object that cases of 
corruption shall be tried speedily which is the policy of the Act and underlies 
S.3 as well; S.3 not violative of Article 14. 
D 
Constitution of India, Article 14-Administrative Law-Notification 
issued by State Government appointing special courts to try cases of corruption 
against former Chief Minister amd Ministers under PCA-Cha/lenged as 
violqtive of Article 14 on the grounds of malice in law and fact-Held, no 
mat~rial brought on record or factual averments made to show that E 
government had singled out petitioners for political targeting; notification 
neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 14-Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988, S.3-Pleadings. 
Constitution of India, Article 233-Whether appointment of Special 
judges made in consultation with High Court-Held, proposal and posting F 
of additional judges as special judges approved by Full Court; allocation 
and distribution of work being an administrative act could be performed by 
Acting Chief Justice acting alone. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Power of State Government under S.3 of 
PCA to appoint as many special judges as may be necessary for area or areas G 
or for such case or group of cases-Held, the word 'or' in S. 3 would mean 
that government has the power to do either or both the things. 
Words and Phrases-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Ss.3, 4(2)-
Held, the words 'as may be necessary' in S.3 is the guideline according to 
which the government has to exercise discretion to achieve the object of H 
653 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A speedy trial; the term 'necessary' means what is indispensable, needful or 
essential; word 'case' in the second part of S.4(2) includes cases-
; 
Prevention of Corrupti~n Act, 1988 (PCA), S.4. (2)-High Court 
dismissing writ petitions of former Chief Minister and Ministers challenging 
notifications issued in April, 1997 under PCA appointing special courts to 
B try cases of corruption-Trial going on since May, 1997-Whi~e SLPs pending 
in Supreme Court Central Government on February 5, 1999 issuing 
notification under S. 4(2) reallocating cases to be tried by the special judges-
Held, notification was bad and not in accordance with S.4(2); Central 
Government failed to establish necessity for issuing notification. 
c 
J was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu between 1991 and 1996. In the 
elections to the legislative assembly in 1996, the rival party (DMK) came to 
· power and many criminal cases of corruption under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) were filed against J and her cabinet colleagues. 
The State Government after obtaining the concurrence of the High Court 
D issued on April 30, 1997 a notification whereby three additional Courts of 
City Civil and Sessions Judges, Chennai were established and the Judges 
of those Courts were appointed as Special Judges to try exclusively on day-
to-day basis the criminal cases filed against J and her cabinet colleagues. _ 
The notification as well as s.3 PCA under which it was issued were challenged · 
E by J and her colleagues as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the 
Constitution. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and held that S.3 in so far 
as it empowered the Government to appoint special Judges "for such case 
or group of cases" was constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 14 
F and 21. It also upheld the validity of the notification. J and her colleagues 
thereafter filed SLPs in this Court. 
i While the SLPs were pending, the Central Government, in exercise of 
its powers under Ss. 3(1) and 4(2) PCA issued two notifications on February 
G 5, 1999 appointing the Xlth, Xllth and XIIIth Additional City Civil and 
Sessions Judges, Chennai as Special Judges for trial of offences specified 
in S.3(1) and specified some Special Judges in the city of Chennai to be the 
Ju

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