ABDUL AZIZ versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Section 1(4) of TADA Act is constitutionally valid due to explicit saving clause; classification of offenders based on Act's duration is reasonable and not discriminatory; prescribed procedure is by Parliament, leaving no discretion; no evidence of judicial bias established by article or police-provided transport.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Abdulaziz; Respondents: State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 21 July 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition (crl) No. 413 of 1995 / Final Order Petition Dismissed
- Outcome
- Petition dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987, Section 1(4) Constitutional Validity, Classification of Offenders, Articles 14 and 21, Judicial Bias
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdulaziz
Petitioner
State of West Bengal and Anr.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (crl) No. 413 of 1995 / Final Order Petition Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 1(4) of TADA Act is unconstitutional for continuing trials after expiry of the Act
- 2 Whether the classification of offenders under TADA violates Articles 14 and 21
- 3 Whether procedure under TADA is discriminatory
Ratio Decidendi
Section 1(4) of TADA Act is constitutionally valid due to explicit saving clause; classification of offenders based on Act's duration is reasonable and not discriminatory; prescribed procedure is by Parliament, leaving no discretion; no evidence of judicial bias established by article or police-provided transport.
Court Disposition
Petition dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment