KATHI RANING RAWAT versus THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 27-02-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
435 
bona fide, even if good faith can be held to be a defence 
at all in a proceeding for contempt. 
What is more, 
he did not express any regret for what he had done 
either in the High Court or before us and his behaviour 
Joes not show the least trace of contrition. In these 
circumstances, we think that the appeal cannot suc-
ceed and must be dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appelliant : S. Subrahmanyam. 
Agent for the respondent : P. A. Mehta. 
KATHI RANING RAWAT 
ti. 
THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA 
[PATANJALI SASTRI c. J., 
FAZL ALI, MEHAR CHAND 
~1h.IHJAN, MuKERJEA, DAs, CHANDRASEKH.,RA 
A1Y AR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 
Saurasiitra State Public Safety (Third Amendment) Orditzanu 
(LXVI of 1949), ss. 9, 10, 11-Law empowering State to constitute 
Special 
Court,· to 
try special classe . .-
of ofjences-Constittttional 
11alidity-Contraventio11 of fundamental rig/it to equal protection of 
laws-Ess~ntiais of 
valid 
clas.<ifimtion-I>c:legation of legislative 
powers--r:omritutio11 of lndia, .1rts. 13, 14. 
The Saurashtra 
State Public 
Safety 
.Measnrcs 
Ordinance, 
19-18, was 
p~5'ed "to provide for pul1lic safety, maintenance of 
public order and preservation of peace and tranquillity in the 
State of Saurashtra." 
As crimes 
involving violence 
such 
as 
dacoity and murder were increasing, this Ordinance was amend-
ed by the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amend-
ment) Ordinance, 1949, which, by secs. 9, JO and 11, empower-
ed the State Government hy notification in the official gazette 
to constitute 
Special 
Courts of criminal jurisdiction 
for such 
,1rea as may he specified in the notification, to appoint Special 
fudges to prc,ide over such 
Conrts and to invest 
them with 
jurisdiction 
to try such offences 
or classes of offences or such 
cases or classes of cases as the Government may, by general or 
special order in writing, direct. 
The procedure laid down by 
1952 
Bathina Ramtt· 
krishna Reddy 
v. 
The State of 
Madras:. 
1952 
p,,,. 27. 
1952 
Kathi Ran in g 
Rawat 
"· 
The State of 
Saurasktra. 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
the Ordinance for trial before such Courts varied from the nor-
mal procedure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure (-:ode in two 
material respects, viz., there \Vas no provision for trial ·by jury 
or v,rith the aid of assessors, or for enquiry before con1mitment 
to sessions. 
In exercise of the po\vers conferred by this Ordi-
nance the Government, by a 
notification, constituted a Special 
Court for 
certain 
areas and 
empowered that 
Court to try 
offences under secs. 183, 189, 302, '04, 307, 392 and certain other 
sections of the 
Indian 
Penal 
Code \Vhich \\'ere specified 
in the 
notification. 
It was conten<led on behalf of 
the appellant who had been 
convicted by the Special Court under secs. 302, 307 and 392 of 
the Indian 
Penal Code read· with sec. 34, 
that the Ordinance of 
1949 and the notification above-mentioned contravened 
J\rt. 14 
of the Constitution and were therefore ultra vires and void : 
Held, per PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J., FAZL Au, MuKHF.llJEA and 
D1i.s 
JJ.-(:~.1EHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN, 
CttANDRASEKnA:n.A 
A1YA1t 
and BosE Jj. dissenting)-That the 
impugned 
Ordinance in so 
far as it 
authorised the 
State 
Government to 
Jirect offences or 
classes of offences or ch1sses of cases to be tried by the Special 
Court did not contravene the provisions of Art. 14 and was not 
ultra vireJ or void. 
The notification 
i~sued under the Ordinancr. 
w::i.s also not void. 
PATANJALI 
SAsTRI C. J.-All legislative differentiation is not. 
nece$sarily 
di$criminatory. 
Discrimination invol\'es 
an 
element 
of unfavourable bias, and it is in that sense that the i;:xpression has 
to he understood in the context. 
Equal protection claims under 
Art. J 4 arc exan1incd 'vi th the presun1ption that the State action 
is reasonable and justified. 
1'hough differing procc-durcs might 
involve disparity in treatn1cnt of per'.'ons trie<l under then1, such 
disparity is 
11Dt in it<:clf sufficient to out\\'eigh this presumption 
and e::.tahlish discrimination unless the <legree of disparity goes 
beyond what the reason for its existence demands, 
~.g., 'vhen it 
an1ounts to a denial of a fair and impartial trial. 
111.e impugned 
Ordinance having been passetl to co1nbat the increasing tempo of 
cert:1.in types of regional 
crime~ the t\vo-fold classification on thr-
lines of type and territory adopted by the said Ordin

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