AMITY LAW SCHOOL KOLKATA

B.Com LL.B (Hons)

SEMESTER 3

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LAW117)

TOPIC: ANWAR ALI SARKAR V. STATE OF

WEST BENGAL, AIR 1952

SUBMITTED TO: Mr INDRA NATH DEY

SUBMITTED BY:

1. SHREYASI BOSE
2. AMALU IYER

P a g e 1 | 16
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
3. JUDGEMENT
4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
5. CONCLUSION
6. REFERENCE

P a g e 2 | 16
 INTRODUCTION
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANWAR ALI SARKAR

This case is one of the land mark case in Indian legal history. The West Bengal
Special Courts Act, 1950 which established special courts to hear certain offenses
was challenged in the case for its validity. In the case law the difference between
equity and equality is also brought in through Article 14, Article 32 and Article
226 of the Indian constitution.

1. Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or
the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

2. Article 13: Fundamental right, Supreme Court has the authority to issue
writs across India.

3. Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

Writs are those written order issued by a court instructing someone to do
or restrain from doing something.

P a g e 3 | 16
Types of writs:

1. Habeas Corpus: The most powerful and mostly used writ. Objective to
free a person who has been unlawfully detained or imprisoned.
2. Mandamus: A directive order that tells someone to do what they are
legally obligated to do.
3. Certiorari: The Supreme Court or high court can ask the subordinate
courts to submit their records for review. (Treatment or cure)
4. Prohibition: To forbid. Prevention is better than cure.
5. Quo warranto: The court can issue this to ask any public official about
the authority under which that the public official has accepted that
particular public office.
6. Date of judgement January 11th, 1952
7. Equivalent citation AIR 1952 Cal 150
8. Petitioner State of West Bengal
9. Respondent Anwar Ali Sarkar
10.Bench Chief Justice Harries, Justice Chakravartti, Justice S.R. Das Gupta,
Justice P.B. Mukherjee, and Justice Bachawat.

P a g e 4 | 16
 FACTS OF THE CASE
The defendant and 49 other people were accused with a number of charges under
the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, that they are alleged to have
committed during their armed gang raid on the Jessop factory in Dum Dum. They
were found guilty and given various prison terms by the Special Court that by a
notification dated 26-1-1950, the West Bengal Governor sent the case for trial.
Utilising the authority granted by Section 5(1) of the Act.

The defendant then filed an application with the High Court according to Article
226 of the Constitution asking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the
conviction and sentence on the grounds that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction
to hear the case since Section 5(1), under which it was assigned to. According to
Article 13(2), the court for trial was void and unconstitutional since it refused to
give the respondent equal protection under the law, as mandated by Article 14.

The High Court ordered the respondent and the other accused parties to be tried
in accordance with the law after overturning the conviction by a Full Bench. As
a result, this Hon'ble Court is hearing an appeal. The State of West Bengal filed
this appeal in response to a decision by the High Court of Calcutta that vacated
the respondent's conviction by the Special Court established under Section 3 of
the West Bengal Special Courts Ordinance, 1949, which was replaced in March
1950 by the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950.

P a g e 5 | 16
Issues:

1. The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was challenged on the basis
that it violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The constitutionality
of Section 5(1) of the Act was also contested on the grounds that it grants
arbitrary ability and authority to submit any case or class of cases to special
courts to the state government without any discernible division.

2. Whether the provisions of the Act violated the fundamental rights of the
accused?

3. Whether the provisions of the Act violated the right to equality before the
law?

Arguments advanced by the petitioner:

‘The fact that discrimination resulted as a by-product would not violate the
provisions of Article 14 if the legislation's objective was excellent and had a
public purpose in mind, as in this case, which provided for the speedier trial of
certain offences. This implies that if the inequality of treatment was not
specifically intended to harm any one person or group of people but was in the
general interests of administration, it could not be argued that it was in violation
of the law.’

‘If the principle of classification needs to be implemented as a necessary test,

there is a classification in the Act under dispute as it states that it is designed to
provide for the expedited trial of certain offences, and in the legislature's opinion
certain offences may require more expedited. This classification was reasonable
because it demanded less of a trial than other offences.’
P a g e 6 | 16
‘The State Government is given the authority under the Act to designate the
offences that, in its opinion, call for a quicker trial. This State control, which has
the authority to make any adjustments it sees fit in order to ensure proper and
effective administration of justice, is merely a rule governing the trial process and
is therefore not a constitutional right. Unfriendly or discriminatory laws. This
section's construction is consistent with preamble of the Act and does not violate
the prohibition of Article 14 of our Constitution.’

According to the petitioner, the Article only provides protection from the
unfairness of substantive law and not from that of a procedural law. The
modifications made to the West Bengal criminal justice system's trial process
.The Special Courts Act of 1950 only has small effects, and there are no
significant justifications for it. Which discrimination might be alleged or
supported.

Arguments advanced by the respondent:

The entirety of Section 5 of the Act, or at least that portion of it that permits the
State Government to order specific "cases" to be heard by the Special Court,
violates Article 14's guarantee of equality before the law. If the Section 5 clause
of the Act is invalid, even in the restricted sense described above, and the entire
procedure is invalid as well before the Special Court, which was appointed by the
State Government to try these specific cases According to the High Court's ruling,
"cases" were necessarily without jurisdiction. These appeals would need to be
rejected by the whole bench.

‘There is no indication in the sub-section itself of any restriction or qualification

on the power of classification granted by it to the State Government and that the
authority thus granted to the State Government cannot be limited and reduced by

P a g e 7 | 16
appealing to the Preamble of the Act, because the meaning of the sub-section's
simple language cannot be expanded or diminished by the Preamble.’

This unrestrained and unguided power of classification granted to the State under
Section 5(1) may be used arbitrarily or "with an evil eye and an unequal hand" in
order to purposefully cause enmity between man and man, notwithstanding the
fact that both of them are situated in the same geographical location in the same
or comparable conditions.

Main question of law:

Whether, judged by these tests, the West Bengal Special Courts Act can be said
to be inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Questions before the court:

1. The ability of the State Government to withdraw a prior notification under

Section 269 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, however, put
an end to the problem because it raises the question of whether doing so
would constitute discrimination against certain groups of people in this
State.

2. Whether the Writ lies post-judgment in order to overturn a conviction.

3. During the pre-Constitutional era, there were many opportunities to protest

about discrimination between one accused and another using special
legislation, but eventually, the complaint always failed.

P a g e 8 | 16
4. When it emerges during the trial of the people named in the notification
that some other people were also involved in the commission of the crime
for which the people named in the notification are being tried, can those
other people be tried by the Special Court on the basis of the notification?

P a g e 9 | 16
 JUDEGEMENT
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, made up of five judges,
heard the case. The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was declared illegal
by the court because it infringed upon the accused's fundamental rights as
guaranteed by Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Act, according to the court, provided the state government the authority to
establish special courts and appoint judges without following any rules or criteria.
The Act also prohibited the right of appeal to the High Court and excluded the
jurisdiction of normal courts, which went against the notions of natural justice
and the rule of law.

The court additionally concluded that the Act's provision, which permitted the
special courts to rely on the evidence gathered during the inquiry without
allowing the accused to question the witnesses in person, was against natural
justice and fair trial principles.

Important guidelines for the defence of fundamental rights and the rule of law
were established by the decision in the State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
case. It emphasised the value of judicial review in ensuring that the use of
legislative authority does not violate citizens' rights.

P a g e 10 | 16
Precedents:

This Court has reviewed and established the interpretation, breadth, and
implications of the provisions of Article 14 of our Constitution in the matter of
Chiranjit Lal v. The Union of India1. Supplementary to The State of Bombay v.
F.N. Balsara Now all is well. it was determined that while Article 14 is intended
to stop a person or class of people from becoming selected among those in a
similar situation with the intention of being subjected to further scrutiny It does
not insist on a "abstract symmetry" in the sense of being hostile or discriminatory.
Therefore each and every law must be applicable to everyone. Due to the fact that
no two people are alike in nature, accomplishment, or circumstance, and because
distinct classes of people frequently need to be treated differently, the
safeguarding clause has been interpreted as a protection against discrimination
only among equals, not as a basis of depriving the State of its rights the ability to
categorise people for legal purposes.

Similar case laws are:

1. Charanjitlal v. Union of India', (1950 S.C.R. 869)

2. Pailwan abdul khader v. state of Mysore (AIR 1951)
3. Romesh thappar v. The state of madras

P a g e 11 | 16
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West Bengalis a landmark case in Indian legal
history. This case, decided in 1952, raised critical constitutional questions
concerning the validity of certain provisions of the West Bengal special courts
Act, 1950.

Background:

The West Bengal special courts Act, 1950, aimed to expedite the trial of certain
offences, primarily those related to corruption and malpractices by public
servants. It establishes special courts with limited jurisdiction to hear cases under
this Act. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the petitioner in this case, challenged the
constitutionality of this Act on several grounds.

Key Issues:

1. Violation of Articles 14 (Right to equality):

One of the primary contentions in this case was that the West Bengal
special courts Act violated Articles 14 of the Indian constitution, which
guarantees the right to equality before the law. Anwar Ali argued that the
classification of cases and the appointment of special courts for particular
offences was arbitrary and discriminatory. (Shukla, 2023)
 Critical Analysis: The court, in its judgement, examined the validity
of the classification made by the Act. It held that while the
classification itself was not inherently unconstitutional, it was
essential for the classification to have a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved. In this case, the courts found that the
classification was not based on any intelligible differentia and that
there was no rational connection between the classification and the
objective of speedy trials. This part of the judgement was a
P a g e 12 | 16
 significant development in Indian jurisprudence as it reinforced the
principle that classification for special treatment must be reasonable
and just.
2. Violation of Article 20(3) (Protection against self-incrimination):
Anwar Ali also contended that Act compelled the accused to be a witness
against himself, thus violating the protection against self-incrimination
under Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution. (Shukla, 2023)
 Critical Analysis: The court upheld this argument and fund that
certain provisions of the Act did indeed infringe upon the
fundamental right against self-incrimination. This reaffirmed the
importance of protecting the accused from being compelled to
testify against themselves, a crucial aspect of criminal
jurisprudence.
3. Separation of power:
Another critical issue addressed in the case was the separation of powers
between the legislature, executive and judiciary. Anwar Ali argued that Act
allowed the executive to encroach upon the judicial domain by appointing
special judges. (Shukla, 2023)
 Critical Analysis: The court recognised the principle of separation
of powers and held that the appointment of special judges by the
executive did not violate this principle as long as the judiciary had
control over their functioning and independence.

Significance:

The Anwar Ali Sarkar case is significant for several reasons:

1. It establishes that principle that classification for special treatment

under law must be reasonable and have rational nexus with the objective
sought to be achieved.

P a g e 13 | 16
2. It reinforced the protection against self-incrimination as a fundamental
right of the accused.
3. It clarified the boundaries of the separation of powers doctrine in the
context of special courts and executive appointments.

P a g e 14 | 16
 CONCLUSION
Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West BengalAIR1952 is a seminal judgement
in Indian constitutional law that significantly contributed to the development of
fundamental rights and principles such as equality before the law, protection
against self-incrimination and the separation of powers. The case served as a
touch stone for evaluating the constitutionality of special laws and their impact
on the rights of individuals.

Despites the state’s authority to classify offences and establish special courts to
expedite trials, that classification must be reasonable and based on a rational
connection with speedy justice. The court’s scrutiny of the West Bengal special
courts Act, 1950, set a precedent for future cases dealing with the constitutionality
of similar legislation, emphasizing the importance of fairness and due process.

Furthermore, judgement upheld the fundamental right against self-incrimination

enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution. It underscored the vital
protection afforded to individuals, preventing them from being compelled to be
witnesses against themselves.

Additionally, the case clarified the boundaries of the separation of powers

doctrine in the context of executive appointments of judges to special courts. It
emphasized that while the executives may have a role in the appointment process,
the judiciary must maintain control and independence over the functioning of
these courts to ensure the preservation of justice.

In sum, Anwar Ali Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal AIR 1952, has left an
indelible mark on Indian jurisprudence, serving as a testament to the judiciary’s
role in safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring that the state’s exercise of
power remains consistent with the principles of justice, equality and the rule of
law. This case continues to cited and relied upon in legal discussions and

P a g e 15 | 16
judgements, shaping the course of Indian constitutional law for generations to
come. (Singh, 2023)

REFERENCE
1. Shukla, V. (2023). Constitutional law of India. EBC.

2. Singh, S. (2023, April 14). Legal Vidhya. Retrieved from legalvidhya:

https://legalvidhiya.com/state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-Sarkar-air-
1952/#:~:text=It%20upheld%20the%20power%20of,accused%20receive
d%20a%20fair%20trial

P a g e 16 | 16