KARTAR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

KARTAR SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The challenged Acts—Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts of 1985 and 1987, and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984—fall within Parliament’s legislative competence with reference to Article 248 and relevant entries of the Union List, and are not ultra vires. The statutes address threats beyond 'public order,' relating to defence of India. Most challenged provisions are constitutionally valid, except Section 22 of TADA and, per one judge, Section 15, which are not in conformity with Article 21. Specific safeguards and guidelines are to be incorporated for confessions and trial processes. High Courts retain limited powers under Article 226 regarding bail...

Parties
Petitioner: Kartar Singh; Respondent: State of Punjab; Petitioner: K. Irpa Shankar Raj; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Writ Petitions, Criminal Appeals and Special Leave Petitions / Judgment on Constitutional Validity and Disposition
Outcome
Majority upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the Special Courts Act, subject to certain exceptions; Section 22 TADA is struck down as unconstitutional. Section 15 was held valid by majority though one judge found it unconstitutional. Several guidelines issued for implementation of confession,...
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence of Parliament, Classification Under Article 14, Speedy Trial, Mens Rea, Confession to Police, Bail Under TADA, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Statutes
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Legislative Competence of Parliament Classification Under Article 14 Speedy Trial Mens Rea Confession to Police Bail Under TADA +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kartar Singh

Petitioner

State of Punjab

Respondent

K. Irpa Shankar Raj

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petitions, Criminal Appeals and Special Leave Petitions / Judgment on Constitutional Validity and Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act are constitutionally valid?
  2. 2 Whether specific provisions like abetment, confession, designated courts, bail, and appellate procedure violate constitutional rights under Articles 14, 20, 21, 233, 234, or 235?
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of anticipatory bail and certain procedural aspects infringe upon personal liberty or the right to fair trial under Article 21?

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged Acts—Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts of 1985 and 1987, and the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984—fall within Parliament’s legislative competence with reference to Article 248 and relevant entries of the Union List, and are not ultra vires. The statutes address threats beyond 'public order,' relating to defence of India. Most challenged provisions are constitutionally valid, except Section 22 of TADA and, per one judge, Section 15, which are not in conformity with Article 21. Specific safeguards and guidelines are to be incorporated for confessions and trial processes. High Courts retain limited powers under Article 226 regarding bail...

Court Disposition

Majority upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the Special Courts Act, subject to certain exceptions; Section 22 TADA is struck down as unconstitutional. Section 15 was held valid by majority though one judge found it unconstitutional. Several guidelines issued for implementation of confession,...

Orders

  • Section 22 of TADA Act struck down.
  • Guidelines regarding confessions under Section 15 to be statutorily incorporated.