STATE OF NAGALAND versus RA TAN SINGH, ETC.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 09-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF NAGALAND 
v. 
RA TAN SINGH, ETC. 
March 9, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, HIDAYATULLAH, 
J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.j 
Scheduled Districts Act, 1874-Rule• thereunder-If valid and in 
fore~! Act bad for excessive delegation-If Rulu violate Arts. 14 and 
21 of Co11stltution-Applicabi/ity of Criminal Procedure Code to back-
ward tracu--Constitution of India, 1950. 
The respondents were sought to be tried for oft'ooces under the Indian 
Ponal Code, before the Additional Dqluty Commissioner, Kohnna, "hen 
objection was taken that the trial should be before the Court of Sessiom 
;ifter commitment, as tho offences were triable exclusively by the Court 
of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional Deputy 
Commissioner overruled tho objection on the ground that there were no 
Courts of s-ion in the Naga Hills District and tho Criminal Procedure 
Code was also not in force. 
He ruled that committal proceedings and 
the trial before a session coun was therefore not possible and the pr<><»-
dure laid down in the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police 
ii\ the Naga Hills District, 1937, would be followed. 
Thereupon the res-
pondents filed writ petitions to quash the proceedings commenced under 
the Rulo:; of 1937. Tho High Court issued a writ directing the State not 
to proceed with the trial under the Rules of 1937. 
The area, where the trial was taking place was one of the backward 
tracts and it was for a century and more specially administered. 
Tho 
successive Criminal Procedure Codos, which ordinarily would have gov-
erned the trial of offence•, were always withdrawn from this area and 
special rul"" for administration of criminal justice were pomulgated in-
stead. 
Dy tho Government of India Act, 1870, the Governor-General 
and other authorities were conferred the power to make or propose laws, 
and the Governor-General was allowed to legislate separarelv for the 
backward tracts. 
M difficulties arose in determining whµt laws were in 
force and io which area of backward tracts, the Scheduled Districts Act, 
1874 was passed. 
The p06ition at the inauguation of the Govornmcot 
of India. 1935 was that the Go\'emor-General in Council legislated for 
these backward areas and the Governor-General could direct that any 
Act of the Indian Legislatures should not apply at all or should apply 
with such exceptions and modifications as he might think tit. The 1935 
Act provided for the ascertainment of the backward tracJs and for =king 
of laws in those areas and in 1936 an Order in Council was made speci· 
fying the backward tracts. The Scheduled District Act was repealed by 
the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1937. The Constitution of India, 1950, 
by Art. 244 made a special provision for the scheduled and tribal areu. 
1ltt> State of Nagaland was formed by the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 
comprising of N"? Hills-Tuensang Area and consisting of three dis-
tricta. The admin!Slration of tho State of Nagaland was to be in accord-
ance with the provisions of the State of Nagaland Act, which amon~ other 
thingt provided for the continuance of existing law• and their adaptation. 
The Government and administration of these areas was often not carried 
on directly under laws made by the Governor-General either by himself 
•
B 
c 
• 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
NAGALAND v. RATAN SINGH 
831 
or in his Council but through rules which were framed from tµne to t!m• 
by other agencies. 
In 193 7, the Governor of AMam prescribed re~ed . 
Rules under the powers vested in him by s. 6 of the S9heduled D1•ti:icts 
Act. These Rules of 1937 began by stating that they cancelled "all pre>1ous 
orders on the subject" but were on the pattern of earlier rules 
which 
laid down that in criminal trials the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code 
was to be followed because the Code itself was not in force. 
In appeal 
to this Court, the main question that arose were whether the Rules 
of 1937 were validly enacted and they continued to be in force, _whether 
the Scheduled Districts Act was bad because of excessive delegation, ao.d 
whether the Rules of 1937 were rendered void by reasou of Arts. 14 and 
21 of the Constitution. 
HELD: The Rules of 1937 were validly enacted and continued to be 
in force and governed the trial of the respondents. The Oxle of Criminal 
Procedure admittedly did not apply to that area and the Additional Deputy 
Commissioner was therefore right in holding the trial u

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