KADRA PAHADIYA AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 19-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KADRA PAHADIYA AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR ETC. 
MARCH 19, 1997 
B 
(A.M. AHMADI, en. AND B.N. KIRPAL, J.] 
Oiminal Procedure Code 197~Sections 13( 1 ), 18( 1 )-Appointment 
of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan Magistrates-Validity 
of-Upheld-Not violative or arbitrmy-Provision "who holds or has held any 
C post under the Government" does not mean to exclude appointment of mem-
bers of subordi11ate judicia1y-Constitution of India, A1t. 14. 
Section 13( 1), 18( 1)-Appointment of SpeciaUudicial Magistrates a11d 
Metropolita11 Magistrate-For disposal of petty cases pe11ding for long 
pe1iod-State Govemment directed to issue appropliate letter of requests to 
D respective High Courts-Directions issued. 
The Petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a direction that adequate 
appointments of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special Metropolitan 
Magistrates should be made in the States for the disposal of petty cases. 
E The Petitioners contended that the dockets of the Magistrates all over the 
country were swollen on account of petty cases which contd be disposed of 
by the appointment of Special Judicial Magistrates and Special 
Metropolitan Magistrates in. sufficient members and when these cases are 
taken out of the regular courts, they will be free to dispose of serious cases 
F 
faster and that would meet the requirement of speedy justice, that when 
cases are pending in such large numbers, there is no justification for not 
using a part of the system envisaged under Sections 13 & 18 of Cr. P.C. 
1973 that it betrays indifference and lack of concern for speedy disposal 
of cases, and that there was no justification for the Government for not 
invoking the provisions even after resolutions were adopted in this behalf 
G by the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justice in 1993 and 
endorsed by the Law Ministers' meeting in 1994. 
In the meanwhile in 1984, on a challenge to the validity of Sections 
13 and 18 of the Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court declared the provisions 
as unconstitutional in as much as they confined the appointments to 
H persons holding or having held any post under the Government. The High 
32 
·-
...... 
-.. 
";i. 
• 
KADRAPAHADIYA v. STATE 
33 
Court was of the view that the classification was arbitrary and not based A 
on an intelligible differentia and therefore violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. The rules framed to give effect to the provisions of the code 
were also held to be violative of the Constitution. 
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, the Court 
HELD : 1. The decision of the High Court is based on a narrow 
reading of the sub-sections. The subsections merely enable the High Court 
B 
to appoint persons, other than judicial officers, who hold or have held any 
post under the Government and who possess the qualification and ex-
perience in relation to legal affairs as may be specified by the High Court. C 
Parliament has taken care to leave the questions of specifying the require-
ments for the appointment to the High Court. There is, therefore, no 
warrant for placing a narrow construction on the words 'who holds or has 
held any post under the Government, to confine them to appointments of 
Government servants, present or past only, and to exclude members 
belonging to the subordinate Judicial Services. Special provision in the D 
nature of an enabling provision had to be made because without such a 
provision, appointment of Government servants, past or present, could 
not have been possible. Care has also been taken to ensure that the 
appointments are made of persons who have the necessary qualification 
and experience in relation to legal affairs which the High Court considers E 
necessary for the exercise of power that may be conferred on the appoin-
tee. Furthermore, the duration of appointment has been restricted to one 
year at a time which would give the High Court an opportunity to observe 
the work of the appointee to enable it to decide whether or not to extent 
the appointment for a further period, if the workload justifies such con-
tinuance. The High Court fell into an error in thinking that sub-sections F 
13(1) and 18(1) of the Code totally exclude appointment of members of the 
subordinate judiciary as Special Judicial Magistrates/Special 
Metropolitan Magistrates. (45-C-D, 45-E-H, 46-A-C] 
M. Narayanaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984) Cr.L.J. 1583, G 
overruled. [ 46-B-C] 
2. There can be little doubt that when the calen

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