Special Courts Under Criminal Statutes
🔹 What Are Special Courts?
Special Courts are courts established under specific criminal statutes to deal with particular types of offenses. They are not ordinary criminal courts but are created:
To ensure speedy trial
To deal with complex or serious offenses
To provide specialized adjudication
These courts derive authority from specific statutes passed by the Parliament or State legislatures.
🔹 Legal Basis for Special Courts
Various statutes provide for the establishment of Special Courts. Here are a few major ones:
| Statute | Special Court Established For |
|---|---|
| Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) | Offenses under NDPS |
| Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) | Corruption cases involving public servants |
| SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Offenses against Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes |
| Companies Act, 2013 | Corporate frauds and related offenses |
| Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) | Terror-related offenses |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) | Sexual offenses against children |
🔹 Constitutional Validity of Special Courts
Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution play a crucial role. Special Courts must not violate the right to equality or fair trial. The classification must be intelligible and reasonable.
🔹 Key Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
1. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602
🔹 Issue:
Whether the High Court had the power to transfer a corruption case to a Special Judge without proper statutory backing under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
🔹 Held:
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or judicial order unless backed by law.
The appointment of a Special Judge under a non-applicable statute was held illegal.
Important because it established the principle that Special Courts must be created strictly under the statute and follow the procedure prescribed.
🔹 Importance:
Emphasized that creation and jurisdiction of Special Courts must adhere strictly to statutory procedure, safeguarding against arbitrary exercise of judicial powers.
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
🔹 Context:
Challenge to Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and the functioning of Special Courts under it.
🔹 Held:
Upheld the constitutional validity of Special Courts under TADA.
However, laid down strict safeguards to ensure fair trial, such as:
Legal representation
Protection against prolonged detention
Proper judicial review
🔹 Importance:
Though the court upheld the use of Special Courts, it underscored that fair trial and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) cannot be sacrificed.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed (1994) 2 SCC 664
🔹 Context:
Relating to NDPS Special Courts and framing of charges under special procedure.
🔹 Held:
NDPS Act provides a self-contained code, and Special Courts under this Act have exclusive jurisdiction over offenses under it.
Reiterated that procedure under CrPC does not override special statute procedures unless specifically stated.
🔹 Importance:
This judgment confirmed that Special Courts under NDPS Act are empowered fully to try offenses and must follow special procedures.
4. Union of India v. Madan Gopal (AIR 1954 SC 158)
🔹 Context:
Challenge to the validity of Special Courts Act, 1950, created to try certain public officials for corruption.
🔹 Held:
Upheld the validity of the Act and the classification of offenses and accused.
The differentiation was not arbitrary and was justified by the objective of dealing swiftly with corruption in public life.
🔹 Importance:
One of the earliest affirmations by the SC that special treatment of special classes of offenses/accused is constitutional, provided the classification is reasonable.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 8 SCC 737
🔹 Context:
Relating to Special Courts under Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether assets disproportionate to income fall under its purview.
🔹 Held:
Affirmed that Special Courts under PCA can try such offenses.
Clarified that a public servant can be tried for disproportionate assets under this Act and that cognizance is valid even if initiated on private complaint.
🔹 Importance:
Reinforced the scope and authority of Special Courts under PCA to try high-profile corruption cases.
6. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755
🔹 Though not criminal, this case indirectly confirmed that special forums or courts under specific statutes like Electricity Act, Consumer Protection Act, etc., are valid and can override general jurisdiction of civil or criminal courts.
🔹 Summary of Judicial Trends
| Case | Key Holding |
|---|---|
| A.R. Antulay | Special Courts must be set up only under appropriate statutes |
| Kartar Singh | Validity upheld but emphasized fair trial |
| Abdul Hamid | NDPS courts have exclusive jurisdiction |
| Madan Gopal | Special treatment is constitutional if classification is reasonable |
| K. Shyam Sunder | PCA Special Courts validly try public servants |
| Essar Power | Specialized forums have overriding jurisdiction when legislated |
🔹 Key Takeaways
Special Courts are legal and necessary for speedy justice.
Must be established through valid legislation.
Their procedure often overrides CrPC, being a special law.
They must adhere to constitutional guarantees – particularly Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (fair trial).
RELATED Blog
0 comments