KARTAR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 11-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 32 judgment(s) · cites 36 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
'\ 
..... 
' 
' 
KART AR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
AND 
K.IRP A SHANKAR RAJ 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
MARCH 11, 1994 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M.M. PUNCHHI, K. RAMASWAMY, 
S.C. AGRAWAL AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.] 
17ie Terrorist and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Act 28 
of 1987-Constitutional validity of 
A 
B 
c 
17ie Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 : Act 61 of D 
1984-Constitutional validity of 
17ie Terrorist and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (Act 31 
of 1985)-Constitutional validity of 
Central Legislature-Legislative competence of-Held Acts fall within 
the competence of Parliament-Acts held covered by Entry 1 of List I oj 
Seventh Schedule to Constitution. 
Terrorism is not mere 'Public Order'-It contemplates grave emergent 
situation affecting sovereignty and integrity of country. 
Substantive Offences under the Acts require intention on the part of 
persons committing terrorist acts-Principle of speedy trial is contemplated 
and manifested under TADA Acts. 
E 
F 
'Public Order'--Scope of-!t is confined to disorders of lesser gravity G 
having impact within boundaries of State-Activities of serious nature 
threatening security and integrity of the country are related to defence of India. 
17ie Terrorist and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 
2( J)(a)(i}-'Abetment'-What iS-Clause held impermissibly vague-lnten-
tion is necessary to prove abetment 
375 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Section 2(l)(f)-'Notified area'-Declaration as to- Government 
should make pen·odic review. 
Section 3 (as amended by TADA (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1993) 
and Section 4-Te"orist Acts-Dismptive Activities-Offences also covered 
by ordinary laws-Provision for harsh punishment under TADA Act-In view 
B · of the object and purpose of Act Sections held not violative for absence of 
guiding principle whether to proceed under ordinary law or TADA. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Section 5-Mere possession of arms and ammunition-Whether suffi-
cient to prove offence. 
Section 8-Provision for foifeiture of property-Held not violative of 
Articles 14 and 21. 
Section 9-Designated Courts-Validity of-Held not violative of Entry 
65-List II and Articles 233, 234 and 235 of Constitution. 
Section 9(7}-Designated Court-Judge-Superannuation-Provision 
for continuance after superannuation-Held not violative of Article 
21-Provision does not affect independence of judiciary-However at the time 
of appointment it should be ensured that Judge has sufficient tenure. 
Section 11(2)(3)-Held not violative of Article 14-Designated 
Courts-Order of transfer of cases-Concurrence of Chief Justice of India is 
sine qua non-According of concurrence by GI is a statutory function and 
not a Judicial function-According of concu"ence though imperative but 
passing of transfer order by Government is not imperative-Concurrence by 
GI is not open to Judicial Review but final order of transfer passed by 
Government is subject to Judicial Review. 
Section 15(As amended by TADA (Amedment) Act, 1993)-Confes-
sion-What is-Confession to Police Officer not below in rank of Superinten-
dent of Police-Admissibility of-Fairness in recording the confession-
Section 15 held not violative of Articles 14 and 21--Duty of Court deciding 
admissibility of confession-What is-Oppressive and bmtal behaviour in 
obtaining confession deprecated-Guidelines for ensuring fairness in obtain-
I 
l' 
ing confession laid down-Amendments in Act & Rules suggested 
l' 
~ 
H 
Section 16(1) (As it stood prior to its amendemnt in 1993). 
_, 
KARTAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
377 
Designated Court-Conduct of proceeding m Camera-Legality A 
of-Right to open trial is not absolute. 
Section 16(2) (3}-Designated Court-Withholding the identity rf wit-
nesses by-Legality of-Held there is no constitutional or statutory constraint 
against keeping the identity of witnesses secret in extraordinary circumstances. 
Section 19-f'rovision for direct appeal to Supreme Courf-Held 
valid-In view of the abnonnal procedure-Necessary amendment of Section 
._ 
suggested. 
Section 20(3}-Executive Magistrate-Power to record confession-Sec-
B 
tion :1e/d not violative of Articles 14 and 21 empowering Executive Magistrate C 
to record confession is not contrary to criminal jurispmdence. 
Section 20(4) (As amended by Act 43 of I993}-Provision for trans-
mission of accused to Executive Magistrate and extendi11g the pe1iod of 
detention-Held not ultra vires. 
Section 20(7}-0f

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