Special Criminal Laws
๐ What are Special Criminal Laws?
Special Criminal Laws are legislations enacted to deal with specific types of crimes or offences that are not adequately addressed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or require special procedures due to the gravity or sensitive nature of the crime.
These laws often provide:
Special definitions of offences
Stricter punishments
Special courts or procedures
Presumptions or burden shifts
๐ Major Special Criminal Laws in India
| Act | Objective |
|---|---|
| Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985 | Control and regulation of drugs and narcotics |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988 | Punishing corruption in public offices |
| Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 | Addressing terrorism and unlawful activities |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 | Protecting children from sexual exploitation |
| Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 | Preventing atrocities against SC/ST communities |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Handling cyber crimes |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 | Protecting women from domestic abuse |
| Money Laundering โ Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 | Preventing laundering of money and financial crimes |
โ๏ธ Important Case Laws on Special Criminal Laws
โ๏ธ 1. Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Others
(2009) 12 SCC 161 โ Under NDPS Act
๐น Facts:
The accused was found with a commercial quantity of narcotics. He challenged the conviction citing procedural lapses.
๐งพ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that NDPS Act is a special law with stringent provisions and strict compliance with procedure is mandatory. Non-compliance with Section 42 (search & seizure) is fatal.
โ Importance:
Highlights the rigid procedural safeguards under NDPS.
Minor procedural violations can vitiate trial.
โ๏ธ 2. P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police
(2015) 10 SCC 152 โ Under Prevention of Corruption Act
๐น Facts:
Accused was a government official caught in a trap accepting bribe.
๐งพ Judgment:
Court held that mere recovery of tainted money is not enough. Demand and acceptance must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
โ Importance:
Explains the core ingredients under PCA.
Demonstrates burden of proof lies on prosecution, despite presumption.
โ๏ธ 3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
(2004) 4 SCC 158 โ Under SC/ST Act and CrPC
๐น Facts:
This was the Best Bakery case, involving communal riots and atrocity against minorities (SC/ST victims).
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court ordered retrial and held that hostile witnesses and poor investigation cannot be tolerated in atrocity-related offences.
โ Importance:
Emphasizes the duty of state to protect victims of atrocities.
Extended judicial activism to ensure fair trial under SC/ST Act.
โ๏ธ 4. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
(1994) 3 SCC 569 โ Under TADA (now repealed, but principles applied to UAPA)
๐น Facts:
Accused was charged under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.
๐งพ Judgment:
Court upheld validity of TADA but stated that fundamental rights must be balanced. Confessions to police under special laws must follow stringent safeguards.
โ Importance:
Forms the basis of procedural checks under UAPA today.
Special laws cannot override constitutional safeguards.
โ๏ธ 5. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1 โ Under IT Act, Section 66A
๐น Facts:
Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised sending "offensive" messages online.
๐งพ Judgment:
Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, saying it violates freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
โ Importance:
Limits the overreach of special laws.
Ensures that fundamental rights prevail even in the cyber domain.
โ๏ธ 6. State v. Mohd. Afzal Guru and Others (2005) 11 SCC 600
โ Under UAPA & IPC (Parliament Attack Case)
๐น Facts:
Involved conspiracy with foreign terrorist organizations.
๐งพ Judgment:
Court upheld the use of UAPA and special laws for tackling terrorism. Admitted confessions and circumstantial evidence under special procedural rules.
โ Importance:
Clarifies procedural relaxations in terror-related offences.
Shows how UAPA overrides CrPC in certain aspects.
โ๏ธ 7. Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800
โ Under POCSO Act
๐น Facts:
Case dealt with marital rape of a minor (below 18 years) within marriage.
๐งพ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that marital rape of minor wife is rape under POCSO and IPC, despite the exception under Section 375 IPC.
โ Importance:
Harmonized POCSO with IPC.
Recognized child protection above personal law or exception.
๐ง Key Legal Takeaways from Special Criminal Laws
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Special Procedure | These laws often override CrPC in terms of investigation, bail, or burden of proof. |
| Reverse Burden | Some laws like NDPS and PCA presume guilt unless rebutted. |
| Stringent Punishments | Often provide higher punishments due to the seriousness of the offence. |
| Creation of Special Courts | E.g., NDPS Courts, CBI Courts, UAPA-designated courts. |
| Fundamental Rights Still Apply | Special laws cannot violate Article 14, 21, or 19 unless clearly justified. |
๐ Conclusion
Special Criminal Laws serve as powerful tools to address unique categories of crime like terrorism, corruption, narcotics, sexual offences, and atrocities. While these laws are stringent and have special provisions, the judiciary has consistently emphasized the need to balance such powers with fundamental rights.
Through various landmark judgments, the courts have:
Uphold constitutionality of special laws where needed,
Struck down provisions that were arbitrary or excessive,
Ensured fair trial and due process even under harsh statutes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments