DHARMENDRA KIRTHALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                    [2013] 7 S.C.R. 823


                 DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL                              A
                              v.
             STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
           (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of 2010)
                     AUGUST 02, 2013
                                                                 B
        [H. L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

   UTTAR PRADESH GANGSTERS AND ANTI SOCIAL
ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1986:
                                                                 c
      s. 12 - Trial by Special Courts to have precedence -
Constitutional validity of - Held: Legislature has incorporated
such a provision so that an accused does not face trial in two
cases simultaneously and a case before the Special Court
does not linger owing to clash of dates in trial - Emphasis is 0
on speedy trial and not denial or it - As the trial under the
Act would be in progress, the accused would have the fullest
opportunity to defend himself and there cannot be denial of
fair trial - Thus, the provision does not frustrate the concept
of fair and speedy trial which are the imperative facets of Art. E
21 of the Constitution - The concept of preventive detention
is not even remotely attracted to the arrest and detention for
an offence under the Act - There is a distinction b~tween an
accused who faces trial in other courts and the accused in the
Special Courts under the Act, because such accused is a
gangster as defined uls. 2(c) of the Act and is involved in anti- F
social activities with the object of disturbing public order or of
gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person - The differentiation
between the two is a rational one and cannot be said to be
arbitrary - It does not defeat the concept of permissible G
classification in the realm of Art. 14 of the Constitution -
Constitutional validity of s. 12 of the Act, upheld - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 21 and 22(4).

                             823                                 H
    824      SUPREME COURT R~PORTS              [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         s. 19 - Scope of bail - Explained.

       In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenged
  the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
  and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The
  Court issued notice in regard to validity of s.12 of the Act.
B
  It was, inter alia, contended for the petitioner that (1) the
  provision of giving precedence to the trial before the
  Special Court under the Act and keeping the trial before
  other courts in abeyance would frustrate the basic tenet
  of Art. 21 of the Constitution i.e. the concept of speedy
c and fair trial; (2) detention of accused under the Act
  deprived him of his liberty as the trial in other cases
  would not be allowed to proceed and accused would be
  compelled to languish in custody; (3) the detention under
  the Act, being virtually in the nature of a preventive
D detention, would be violative of Art. 22(4) of the
  Constitution; and (4) that the trial of accused by the
  Special Court under the Act kaeping the trial in other           .
  courts in abeyance would be violative of the equal
  treatment before the law as envisaged under Art. 14 of the
E Constitution.

          Dismissing the petition, the Court

      HELD: 1. It is the duty of the Court to uphold the
  constitutional validity of a statute. Further, there is always
F the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an
  enactment. [Para 22] [840-B-C]

       Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Others
  1950 SCR 869 = AIR 1951 SC 41; Ram Krishna Dalmia v.
G Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others 1959 SCR 279 =AIR
  1958 SC 538; State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Distillery
  Limited 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 479 =AIR 1997 SC 1511;
  Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1962 SCR 44 = AIR
  1961 SC 954; Pathumma and Others v. State of Kera/a and
H Others 1978 (2) SCR 537 = (1978) 2 SCC 1; State of Gujarat
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                825


v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others 2005 (4)       A
Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534; R. S. Joshi, Sa/es Tax
Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit Mills Limited and Another
1978 (1) SCR 338   =(1977) 4 sec 98 - relied on
    2.1. Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and 8
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 clearly
mandates that the trial under this Act of any offence by ·
the Special Court shall have precedence and shall be
concluded in preference to the trial of any other case in
any other court. The Statement of Objects and Reasons C
and Preamble make it quite clear that the Legislature felt
the compulsion to make special provisions against
gangsterism and anti-social activities. The legislature
thought it appropriate to provide that the trial of such
other case shall remain in abeyance. It is apt to note that
"any other case" against the accused in "any other D
court" does not include the Special Court. The emphasis
is on speedy trial and not denial of it. The legislature has
incorporated such a provision so that an accused does
not face trial in two cases simultaneously and a case
before the Special Court does not linger owing to clash E
of dates in trial. It is also worthy to note that the Special
Court has been conferred jurisdiction under sub-s. (1) of
s. 8 of the Act to try any other offences with which the
accused may, under any other law for the time being in
force, have been charged and proceeded at the same trial. F
[Para 15 and 32] (837-B-C; 844-C-F]

     Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another AIR 1987
All 235; Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2000
(10) SCC 145; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCR      G
    =
375 (1994) 3 SCC 569; Gujarat University and Another v.
Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Others AIR 1963 SC
    =
703 1963 Suppl. SCR 122; Shashikant Laxman Kale and
Another v. Union of India and Another 1990 (3) SCR 441     =
AIR 199.0 SC 2114; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha         H
    826     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A Rani and Others 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 543 = (2003) 2 SCC
  223; Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1970 (3) SCR 283
  = (1970) 1 SCC 98; Hussainara Khatoon (/) v. Home
  Secretary, State of Bihar 1979 (3) SCR 169 = (1980) 1 SCC
  81; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (I) 1979 (1) SCR 392  =
B (1978) 4 SCC 494, Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home
  Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 1979 (3) SCR 532 = (1980)
  1 SCC 98, Hussainara Khatoon (VI) v. Home Secretary, State
                                                         =
  of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 1979 (3) SCR 1276 (1980)
  1 sec 115 I Kadra Pahadia v. State of Bihar (II) (1983) 2 sec
c 104; T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N. 1983 (2) SCR 348     =
  1983 (2) SCC 68 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.
                                         =
  Nayak 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 325 1992 (1) SCC 225 -
  referred to.

        2.2. As far as fair trial is concerned, it is an integral
D part of the very soul of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Fair trial
  is the quintessentiality of apposite dispensation of
  criminal justice. There is, however, qualitative difference
  between the right to speedy trial and the right of the
  accused to fair trial. Unlike the right of the accused to fair
E trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per
  se prejudice the accused in defending himself. [Para 33-
  34] [845-A; 846-B-C]

       Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another v. State of
                                             =
F Gujarat and Others 2004 (3) SCR 1050 (2004) 4 SCC 158
  - relied on.

      Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v. State (Government of
  NCT of Delhi) 2012 (10) SCR 480 = (2012) 9 SCC 408; and
  Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and Another v. State of
G Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642 - referred to

         2.3. On a careful scrutiny of the provision, it is quite
    vivid that the trial is not hampered as the trial in other
    court is to remain in abeyance by the legislative
H
       DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                  827


  command. Thus, the question of procrastination of trial            A
  does not arise. As the trial under the Act would be in
  progress, the accused would have the fullest opportunity
  to defend himself and there cannot be denial of fair trial.
  Thus, the provision does not frustrate the concept of fair
  and speedy trial which are the imperative facets of Art.           B
  21 of the Constitution. [Para 36) [846-D-E]
       3. As regards the plea that the accused would be
  compelled to languish in jail as trials in other cases are
  not allowed to proceed, suffice it to say that as far as
  other cases are concerned, there is no prohibition to              C
  move an application taking recourse to the appropriate
  provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant
  of bail. What is stipulated u/s. 12 of the Act is that the trial
  in other case is to be kept in abeyance. Special Courts
  have been conferred with the power to try any other                D
  offence with which the accused under the Act is charged
  at the same trial. Besides, s. · 19 the Act empowers the
  Special Courts to grant bail to an accused under the Act
  though the provision is rigorous. Thus, it cannot be said
. that the accused is compelled to languish in custody               E
  because of detention under the Act. [Para 39 and 41] [848-
  F-H; 849-A; 850-E]
       State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and
  Others 2008 (12) SCR 1083 = (2008) 13 SCC 5 -
  distinguished.                                                     F

      Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and
  another 2012 (7) SCR 584 = (2012) 9 SCC 446 - referred
  to.
      4. The concept of preventive detention is not even             G
  remotely attracted to the arrest and detention for an
  offence under the Act. [Para 42] [850-G]
      5.1. As far as Art. 14 of the Constitution is concerned,
  the procedure provided in the Act does not tantamount              H
    828     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 7 S.C.R.

A to denial of fundamental fairness in trial. It does not really
    shock the judicial conscience and by no stretch of
    imagination, it can be said to be an anathema to the
    sense of justice. It is neither unfair nor arbitrary. It is to
    be noted that there is a distinction between an accused
B who faces trial in other courts and the accused in the
    Special Courts because the accused under the Act is
    tried by the Special Court as he is a gangster as defined
    u/s. 2(c) of the Act and is involved in anti-social activities
    with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any
c undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage
    for himself or any other person. It is a crime of a different
    nature. Apart from normal criminality, the accused is also
    involved in organized crime for a different purpose and
    motive. The accused persons under the Act belong to
    altogether a different category. The legislature has felt
0
    that they are to be dealt with in a different manner and,
    accordingly; the trial is mandated to be held by the
    Special Court in an expeditious manner. The intention of
    the legislature is to curb such kind of organized crimes
    which have become epidemic in the society. The
E . legislature, being guided by its sacrosanct duty to protect
    the individual members of society to enjoy their rights
    without fear and see that some people do not become a
    menace to the society in a singular or collective manner,
    has enacted such a provision. [Para 43-44] [851-B-G]
F
         The Works Manager, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi
                                                 =
    v. Vishwanath and Others (1969) 3 SCC 95 1970 (2) SCR
    726 - referred to
G        5.2. Thus, the accused under the Act is in a distinct
    category and the differentiation between the two, namely,
    a person arrayed as an accused in respect of offences
    under other Acts and an accused under the Act is a
    rational one. It cannot be said to be arbitrary. It does not
    defeat the concept of permissible classification. The
H
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                829

classification is in the permissible realm of Art. 14 of the   A
Constitution. [Paras 45 and 46) [852-E-F; 853-B]
    Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCR 375 =
(1994) 3 sec 569 - referred to.
     5. This Court upholds the constitutional validity of      B
s.12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, as it does not infringe
any of the facets of Arts.14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. [Para 47) [853-C-D]
                                                               c
                    Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1987 All 235            referred to       Para
    2000 (10) sec 145           referred to       Para
    1994 (2) SCR 375            referred to       Para 4       D

    1963 Suppl. SCR 122         referred to       Para 12
    1990 (3) SCR 441            referred to       Para 13
    2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 543 referred to           Para 14      E
    1970 (3) SCR 283            referred to       Para 15
    1950 SCR 869                relied on         Para 22
    1959 SCR 279                relied on         Para 23
                                                               F
     1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 479 relied on            Para 24
     1962 SCR 44                relied on         Para 25
     1978 (2) SCR 537           relied on         Para 26
                                                               G
     2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582 relied on            Para 27
     1978 (1) SCR 338           relied on         Para 28
    2004 (3) SCR 1050           relied on         Para 33
                                                               H
         Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ritu Puri Bala, Abhishek Garg for the
    Petitioner.
F       lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Raman Yadav, Abhisth Kumar,
    Archana Singh (for Kamlendra Mishra) for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G      DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this writ petition preferred under
  Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is
  undergoing trial before the learned Special Judge, District .
  Baghpat, U.P., has called in question the constitutional validity
  of number of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
H Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Act 7 of 1986) (for
       DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                      831
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

short "the Act") being violative of Articles 14, 21, 22(4) and           A
300A of the Constitution of India and further prayed for issue
of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the First Information
Report dated 2.5.2010 giving rise to Crime No. 100 of 2010
registered at Police Station Ramala, District Baghpat.
                                                                         B
     2. At the very outset, it is imperative to state that this Court,
on 20th September, 2010, while issuing notice, had passed the
following order: -

       "Issue notice in regard to the validity of Section 12 of the
       U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,          C
       1986."

     Regard being had to the aforesaid, we shall only dwell
upon and delve into the constitutional validity of the section 12
of the Act.                                                              D
     3. It is necessary to state here that the validity of the Act
was called in question oefore the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad and a Full Bench of the High Court in Ashok Kumar
Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another1 upheld the constitutional
validity and dismissed the writ petition. The assail to the              E
constitutional validity travelled to this Court in Subhash Yadav
v. State of U.P. and Another2 and a two-Judge Bench of this
Court referred the matter to the Constitution Bench by stating
thus: -
                                                                         F
      "Heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

      We are informed that the question of vires of the Terrorist
      Affected Areas (Special Courts Act) 1984, is pending
      before a Constitution Bench. In the light of this, in our
      opinion, it would be proper that these matters wherein the         G
      constitutional validity of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social


1.   AIR 1987 All 235.
2.   Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 317 of 1987 dt. 9.12.1987.                 H
    832       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A         Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is challenged, should also
          be heard by the Constitution Bench."

      4. When the matter was listed before the Constitution
  Bench along with connected matters, the larger Bench in Kartar
B Singh v. State of Punjab3 observed as follows: -

          "Though originally, a number of other matters falling under
          various Acts such as the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social
          Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act 7of1986), the
          Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Narcotics Drugs and
C         Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and some provisions
          of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention
          of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA), were
          listed for hearing, we have fully and conclusively heard only
          the matters pertaining to the Act of 1984, Act of 1985 and
D         Act of 1987 and U.P. Act 16 of 1976."

        5. Thus, the constitutional validity of the Act was not
  decided by the said Constitution Bench. Thereafter, the matters
  relating to this Act were placed before another Constitution
  Bench. The Court, in Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and
E Another, 4 took note of the challenge and the decision rendered
  in Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) and observed thus: -

          "3. We had started hearing arguments in the writ petitions
          when the matters remained part-heard. We have now been
F         informed that Subhash Yadav, petitioner in Writ Petition
          (Crl.) No. 317 of 1987 was discharged by the trial court
          as early as on 3-4-1990 while Amar Mani Tripathi,
          petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 407 of 1987 was
          acquitted by the trial court on 20-5-1992. Learned counsel
G         for Jitender, petitioner in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 562 of
          1987 submits that despite numerous attempts made to
          contact the petitioner and find out about the position of the

    3.   (1994) 3 sec 569.
H 4.     c2000) 10 sec 145.
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                     833
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
    criminal case against him, there is no response. Learned         A
    counsel has, therefore, reported no instructions to pursue
    the writ petition any further.

    4. In view of the developments which have taken place by
    the discharge of petitioner Subhash Yadav and acquittal          8
    of petitioner Amar Mani Tripathi and no instructions having
    been reported on behalf of petitioner Jitender, nothing
    survives for consideration in these writ petitions, as the
    exercise to determine the constitutional validity of the Act,
    would now be only of an academic interest insofar as             C
    these cases are concerned. Writ Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 317
    and 407 of 1987 are, therefore, dismissed as infructuous
    while Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 562 of 1987 is dismissed for
    non-prosecution."

     6. In view of the aforesaid position, the constitutional        D
validity of the Act is still alive, but as a restricted notice was
issued pertaining only to the validity of Section 12 of the Act
and the learned counsel for the parties confined their
submissions in that regard, we would, as stated earlier,
address ourselves singularly on that point. Be it noted, Section     E
12 of the Act provides that the trial under the Act of any offence
by special court shall have precedence over the trial of any
other case against the accused in any other court and shall be
concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and
accordingly trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance.       F

      7. We have heard Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. lrshad Ahmad, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of U. P.

     8. Assailing the validity of the said provision, Mr. Garg,      G
learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following
contentions: -

      (a)   The provision frustrates the basic tenet of Article 21
            of the Constitution as has been interpreted by this      H
    834         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A                Court to encapsulate in a sacrosanct manner the
                 concept of speedy and fair trial, for the trial before
                 the other courts are kept in abeyance and
                 precedence is given to the trial before the special
                 courts under this Act as a consequence of which
B                the trial in other Court does not take place.

          (b)    The precedence conferred on the cases before the
                 special courts tantamounts to illegal detention of an
                 accused as he is deprived of his liberty as the trial
                 in other cases are not allowed to proceed and the
c                accused is compelled to languish in custody.

          (c)    The detention which is virtually in the nature of a
                 preventive detention violates Article 22(4) of the
                 Constitution.
D
          (d)    The accused, who is tried by the special courts
                 under this Act, is treated differently because trial in
                 other courts are kept in abeyance whereas the
                 accused tried by other courts gets the benefit of
                 speedy trial. There is no justification to treat the
E
                 accused under this Act in such a manner as it
                 violates the equal treatment before the law as
                 envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution.

         9. Mr. lrshad Ahmad, learned Additional Advocate General
F   for the State of U.P., resisting the aforesaid proponements,
    contended as follow.s: -

          (i)    The submission that the fundamental concept of
                 speedy trial is throttled and stifled is neither correct
G                nor sustainable as, on the contrary, the purpose of
                 the legislature is to guarantee speedy trial by
                 providing the precedence of the trial under this Act
                 over other cases and keeping other cases before
                 other courts in abeyance. From the scanning of the
                 scheme of the Act, the emphasis on speedy trial is
H
      DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                      835
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
               luminous and, hence, the ground urged on this            A
               score deserves to be repelled.

      (ii)     The liberty of the accused is not jeopardized but
               schematic canvas and conceptual interpretation
               would reveal that the command of the legislature is      8
               for speedy trial and further there are provisions for
               grant of bail.

       (iii)   The contention that it is in the nature of preventive
               detention has no legs to stand upon as preventive
               detention and detention in connection with the crime     C
               under the Act have different connotations altogether.

       (iv)    The accused in other cases, who is not tried under
               this Act, stands on a different footing altogether and
               such a classification is permissible in the              D
               constitutional backdrop and, therefore, it does not
               invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution.

       10. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar
  in their proper perspective, we think it seemly to refer to the
  Statement of Objects and reasons of the Act which is as               E
. follows: -

     "Gangsterism and anti-social activities were on the
     increase in the State posing threat to lives and properties
     of the citizens. The existing measures were not found              F
     effective enough to cope with this new menace. With a view
     to break the gangs by punishing the gangsters and to nip
     in the bud their conspiratoral designs it was considered
     necessary to make special provisions for the prevention
     of, and for coping with gangsters and anti-social activities       G
     in the State.

     Since the State Legislature was not in session and
     immediate legislative action in the matter was necessary,
     tti'El Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities
     (Prevention) Ordinance 1986 (U.P. Ordinance No. 4 of               H
    836        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 7 S.C.R.

A         1986) was promulgated by the Governor on January 15,
          1986, after obtaining prior instruction$ of the President.
          The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities
          (Prevention) Bill, 1986 is accordingly introduced with
          certain necessary modifications to replace the aforesaid
B
          Ordinance."

          11. The Preamble of the Act reads as follows: -

          "An Act to make special provisions for the prevention of,
c         and for coping with gangsters and anti-social.activities and
          for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

      12. Reference to the Statement of Objects l;lnd Reasons
  and the Preamble of the Act is meant to appreciate the
  background and purpose of the legislation. In this context we
D may refer with profit to the dictum in Gujarat University and
  Another v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Others, 5
  where the majority observed as follows: -

          "Statements of Objects and Reasons of a Statute may and
E         do often furnish valuable historical matenal in ascertaining
          the reasons which !nduced the Legislature to enact a
          Statute, but in interpreting the Statute they must be
          ignored."

          13. In Shashikant Laxman Kale and Another v. Union of
F   India and Another, 6 a three-Judge Bench of this Court has
    expressed: -
          "For determining the purpose or object of the legislation,
          it is permissible to look into the circumstances which
G         prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which
          necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited
          purpose of appreciating the background and the

          5.   AIR 1963 SC 703.
H         6.   AIR 1990 SC 2114.
      DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                      837
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is       A
      permissible to look into the Statement of Objects and
      Reasons of the Bill which actuated the step to provide a
      remedy for the then existing malady."

    14. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and                8
Others, 7 the Court referred to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994 to
understand the purpose behind the legislation.

      15. The Statement of Objects and Reasons and Preamble
make it quite clear that the Legislature felt the compulsion to         C
make special provisions against gangsterism and anti-social
activities. While speaking about terrorism, the majority in Kartar
Singh (supra) opined that it is much more rather a grave
emergent situation created either by external forces particularly
at the frontiers of this country or by anti-nationals throwing a        D
challenge to the very existence and sovereignty of the country
in its democratic polity. The learned Judges put it on a higher
plane than public' order disturbing the "even tempo of the life
of community of any specified locality" as has been stated by
Hidayatullah, C.J., in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal. 8            E

      16. The present Act deals with gangs and gangsters to
 prevent organized crime. Section 2 of the Act is the dictionary
 clause. Section 2(b) defines the term "gang" and we think it apt
·to quote the relevant part which is as follows: -
                                                                        F
      ""Gang" means a group of persons, who acting either
      singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of
      violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the
      object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue
      temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for              G
      himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities"

      After so defining, the legislature has stipulated the offences
1.   (2003) 2 sec 22a.
a. (1970) 1 sec 98.                                                     H
    838       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 7 S.C.R.


A   which are punishable under the Act, but they need not be
    referred to.

         17. The term "gangster'' has been defined under Section
    2(c) which is as follows: -
B         ""gangster'' means a member or leader or organizer of a
          gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the
          activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether
          before or after the commission of such activities or
          harbours any person who has indulged in such activities."
c
         18. Section 3 of the Act deals with penalty. It is apt to
    reproduce the same : -

          "3. Penalty. - (1) A gangster, shall be punished with
          imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
D
          not be less than two years and which may extend to ten
          years and also with fine which shall not be less than five
          thousand rupees:

                Provided that a gangster who commits an offence
E         against the person of a public servant or the person of a
          member of the family of a public servant shall be punished
          with imprisonment of either description for a term which
          shall not be less than three years and also with fine which
          shall not be less than five thousand rupees.
F
          (2) Whoever being a public servant renders any illegal help
          or support in any manner to a gangster, whether before or
          after the commission of any offence by the gangster
          (whether by himself or through others) or abstains from
          taking lawful measures or intentionally avoids to carry out
G         the directions of any Court or of his superior officers, in
          this respect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
          description for a term which may extend to ten years but
          shall not be less than three years and also with fine."

H         19. Section 5 of the Act deals with Special Courts and
      DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                        839
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
  Section 5(1) provides that for the interest of speedy trial of         A
  offences under this Act, the State Government may, if it
  considers necessary, constitute one or more special courts.
  Section 7 deals with the jurisdiction of the Special Courts.
  Section 7(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained
  in the Code, where a Special Court has been constituted for            B
  any local area, every offence punishable under any provision
  of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be triable only by
  the Special Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
  committed, whether before or after the constitution of such
· Special Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 lays the postulate         c
  that all cases triable by a Special Court, which immediately
  before the constitution of such Special Court were pending
  before any court, shall on creation of such Special Court having
  jurisdiction over such cases, stand transferred to it.

     20. Section 8 deals with the power of Special Courts with           D
 respect to other offences which reads as follows: -

      "8. Power of Special Courts with respect to other
      offences. - (1) When trying any offence punishable under
      this Act a Special Court may also try any other offence with       E
      which the accused may, under any other law for the time
      being in force, be charged at the same trial.

      (2) If in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence,
      it is found that the accused has committed any other
      offence under this Act or any rule thereunder or under any         F
      other law, the Special Court may convict such person of
      such other offence and pass any sentence authorised by
      this Act or such rule or, as the case may be, such other
      law, for the punishment thereof."
                                                                         G
      21. Section 10 provides the procedure and powers of
 Special Courts and Section 11 provides for protection of
 witnesses. Section 12, the validity of which is under attack, is
 as follows: -
                                                                         H
    840        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A         "12. Trial by Special Courts to have precedence. - The
          trial under this Act of any offence by Special Court shall
          have precedence over the trial of any other case against
          the accused in any other Court (not being a Special Court)
          and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such
B         other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall
          remain in abeyance.•

       22. At this juncture, we may profitably recapitulate that it
  is the duty of the Court to uphold the constitutional validity of a
C statute and that there is always the presumption in favour of the
  constitutionality of an enactment. In this context, we may fruitfully
  refer to the decision in Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union
  of India and Others9 wherein it has been ruled thus: -

          ~It is the accepted doctrine of American Courts, which I
D         consider to be well founded on principle, that the
          presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of
          an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it
          to show that there has been a clear transgression of the
          constitutional principles."
E
       23. In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
  and Others, 10 this Court had ruled that there is always a
  presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment
  and the burden is on him who challenges the same to show that
  there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional
F principles and it is the duty of the Court to sustain that there is
  a presumption of constitutionality and in doing so, the Court may
  take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters
  of common report, the history of the times and may assume
  every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time
G of the legislations.

          24. In State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Distillery

    9.   AIR 1951 SC 4.1.
H 10. AIR 1958 SC 538.
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                       841
             [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
Limited, 11 the said principle was reiterated.                          A

     25. In Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 12
Mudholkar, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench, observed:


     "Where the validity of a law made by a competent                   B
     legislature is challenged in a court of law, that court is
     bound to presume in favour of its validity. Further, while
     considering the validity of the law the court will. not consider
     itself restricted to the pleadings of the State and would be
     free to satisfy itself whether under any provision of the          C
     Constitution the law can be sustained."

     26. In Pathumma and Others v. State of Kera/a and
Others, 13 the seven-Judge Bench has opined thus: -
     "The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than               D
     static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic rather than
     rigid. It must take into consideration the changing trends
     of economic thought, the temper of the times and the living
     aspirations and feelings of the people. This Court while
     acting as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect fundamental        E
     rights guaranteed to the citizens of the country must try to
     strike a just balance between the fundamental rights and
     the larger and broader interests of society, so that when
     such a right clashes with the larger interest of the country
     it must yield to the latter.• ·                                    F
     Again in the said judgment, it has been ruled th~: -

      "It is obvious that the Legislature is in the best p0sition to
    . understand. and appreciate the needs of the people as
      enjoined by the Constitution to bring about social reforms        G
     for the upliftment of the backward and the weaker sections

11. AIR 1997 SC 1511.
12. AIR 1961 SC 954.                             /

13. (1978) 2 sec 1.                                                     H
    842       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         of the society and for the improvement of the lot of poor
          people. The Court will, therefore, interfere in this process
          OQIY when the statute is clearly violative of the right
          conferred on the citizen under Part Ill of the Constitution
          or when the Act is beyond the legislative competence of
B         the legislature or such other grounds."

         27. The said principles have been reiterated by the majority
    in another Constitution Bench in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur
    Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others. 14
c        28. At this juncture, we think it condign to sit in a time
    machine and refer to the opinion expressed by Krishna Iyer, J.,
    in R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit
    Mills Limited and Another: -15

D         "A prefatory caveat. When examining a legislation from the
          angle of its vires, the Court has to be resilient, not rigid,
          forward-looking, not static, liberal, not verbal - in
          interpreting the organic law of the nation. We must also
          remember the constitutional proposition enunciated by the
          U.S. Supreme Court in Munn v. l/linois viz., 'that courts do
E
          not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the
          judgment of legislative bodies'. Moreover, while trespasses
          will not be forgiven, a presumption of.constitutionality must
          colour judicial construction. These factors, recognized by
          our Court, are essential to the modus vivendi between the
F         judicial and legislative branches of the State, both working
          beneath the canopy of the Constitution."

      29. We have referred to the aforesaid authorities for the
  sanguine reason that the submissions raised at the Bar are to
G be considered in the backdrop of the aforesaid "caveat". The

    14. (2005) 8 sec 534.
    15. (1977) 4   sec 98.
    16. (1876) 94 US 113 (quoted in Labour Board v. Jones & Laughlin, 391 US
H       1, 33-34-Corwin Constitution of the USA, Introduction, P. XXXI)
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                    843
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
"Modus Vivendi" which needs a purposive and constructive             A
ratiocination while engaged in the viceration of the provision,
which draws its strength and stimulus in its variations from the
Constitution, we have to see whether the provision trespasses
the quintessential characteristics of the Organic Law and,
therefore, should not be allowed to stand.                           B

     30. Keeping the aforesaid enunciation in view, we shall
presently proceed to deal with the stand and stance of both the
sides. The first submission which pertains to the denial of
speedy trial has been interpreted to be a facet of Article 21 of
the Constitution. In Kartar Singh (supra), the majority, speaking    C
through Pandian,J., has expressed thus: -

    "85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important
    safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration,
    to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the                 D
    accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the
    ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a
    societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has
    been actuated in the recent past and the courts have laid
    down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of              E
    fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases are coming before
    the courts for quashing of proceedings on the ground of
    inordinate and undue delay stating that the invocation of
    this right even need not await formal indictment or charge.

     86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as      F
    an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
    guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right
    to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by
    arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all
    stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial,      G
    appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that
    may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from
    the time of the commission of the offence till it
    consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context,
    it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy      H
    844      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A         trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of
          Criminal Procedure."

          31. Be it noted, the Court also referred to the
  pronouncements in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home ,
  Secretary, State of Bihar, 17 Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
8      18
  (/),    Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of
  Bihar, Patna, 19 Hussainara Khatoon (VI) v. Home Secretary,
  State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 20 Kadra Pahadia v. State
  of Bihar (11), 21 T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N., 22 and Abdul
C Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Na yak. 23
          32. The present provision is to be tested on the touchstone
    of the aforesaid constitutional principle. The provision clearly
    mandates that the trial under this Act of any offence by the
    Special Court shall have precedence and shall ,be concluded
D   in preference to the trial of such other courts to achieve the said
    purpose. The legislature thought it appropriate to provide that
    the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance. It is apt
    to note here that "any other case" against the accused in "any
    other court" does not include the Special Court. The emphasis
E   is on speedy trial and not denial of it. The legislature has
    incorporated such a provision so that an accused does not
    face trial in two cases simultaneously and a case bE!fore the
    Special Court does not linger owing to clash of dates in trial. It
    is also worthy to note that the Special Court has been
F   conferred jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the
    Act to try any 1other offences with which the accused may, under
    any other law for the time being in force, have been charged
    and proceeded at the same trial.
    11. (1980) 1 sec 01.
G   10. (1978) 4 sec 494.
    19. (1980) 1 sec 98.
    20. (1980) 1 sec 115.
    21. (1983) 2 sec 104.
    22. (1980) 2 sec 68.
H   23. (1992) 1 sec 225.
      DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                      845
               [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      33. As far as fair trial is concerned, needless to               A
 emphasise, it is an integral part of the very soul of Article 21 of
 the Constitution. Fair trial is the quintessentiality of apposite
 dispensation of criminal justice. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh
 and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others, 24 it has been held
 as follows: -                                                         B

      "33. The principle of fair trial now informs and energises
      many areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and
      practices. It is a constant, ongoing development process
      continually adapted to new and changing circumstances,
      and exigencies of the situation~peculiar at times and            C
      related to the nature of crime, persons involved-directly
     ·or operating behind, social impact and societal needs and
      even so many powerful balancing factors which may come
      in the way of administration of criminal justice system."
                                                                       D
       In the said case, emphasis was laid on the triangulation
  of the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and
  stress was further laid on the fact that it is the community that
  acts through the State and the prosecuting agencies and the
· interests of the society are not to be treated completely with       E
  disdain and as persona non grata. In paragraphs 39 and 40 of
  the said judgment, it has been ruled thus: -

      "39. Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused
      or the prosecution violates even minimum standards of
      due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due         F
      process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only
    · after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham
      or a mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing
      requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be
      vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed,            G
      tailored and partisan trial.

     40. The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in

24. (2004) 4 sec t58.
                                                                       H
    846       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but
          also in recognition and just application of its principles in
          substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of
          justice."

        34. In Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v. State
8
    (Government of NCT of Delhi), 25 this Court observed that
  "speedy trial" and "fair trial" to a person accused of a crime are
  integral part of Article 21. There is, however, qualitative
  difference between the right to speedy trial and the right of the
  accused to fair trial. Unlike the right of the accused to fair trial,
C deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice
  the accused in defending himself.

          35. Same principle was reiterated in Niranjan
    Hemchandra Sashittal and Another v. State of Maharashtra. 26
D
       36. On a careful scrutiny of the provision, it is quite vivid
  that the trial is not hampered as the trial in other courts is to
  remain in abeyance by the legislative command. Thus, the
  question of procrastination of trial does not arise. As the trial
  under the Act would be in progress, the accused would have
E the fullest opportunity to defend himself and there cannot be
  denial of fair trial. Thus, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid
  provision does not frustrate the concept of fair and speedy trial
  which are the imperative facets of Article 21 of the Constitution.

F       37. The next limb of attack pertains to scuttling of liberty
  of the person who is made an accused for an offence under
  the Act. There can never be any shadow of doubt that sans
  liberty, the human dignity is likely to be comatosed. The liberty
  of an individual cannot be allowed to live on the support of a
G ventilator. Long back in the glory of liberty, Henry Patrick, had
  to say this: -

          "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at
    25. c2012) 9 sec 40B.
H 26. c2013) 4 sec 642.
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                            84 7
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
     the price of chains and slavery? - Forbid it, Almighty God!             A
     - I know not what course others may take, but, as for me,
     give me liberty or give me death. 27 "

     38. When the liberty of an individual is atrophied, there is
a feeling of winter of discontent. Personal liberty has its own
                                                                             B
glory and is to be put on a pedestal in trial to try offenders, it is
controlled by the concept of "rational liberty". In essence, liberty
of an individual should not be allowed to be eroded but every
individual has an obligation to see that he does not violate the
laws of the land or affect others' lawful liberty to lose his own.
The cry of liberty is not to be confused with or misunderstood               c
as unconcerned senile shout for freedom. It may be apt to add
here that the protection of the collective is the bone marrow and
that is why liberty in a civilized society cannot be absolute. It is
the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty. It
is also the duty of the court to see whether the individual                  D
crosses the "Lakshman Rekha" that is carved out by law is dealt
with appropriately. In this context, we may profitably reproduce
a passage from the judgment in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj
Singh alias Lalla Babu and Another: 28 -
                                                                             E
     "17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person
     should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of
     a person has immense impact on the mind of a person.
     Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an
     individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum.                      F
     Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is
     paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic
     body polity which is wedded to the rule of law an individual
    ·is expected to grow within the social restrictions
     sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by              G

27. Henry, Patrick, Speech in the Virginia Revoluntionary Council, Richmod
    1175 in Henry, Willaim Writ, Patrick Henry: Life Correspondence and
    Speeches (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891), Vol. 1, p. 268.
2a. (2012) s sec 446.
                                                                             H
    848      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 7 S.C.R.

A         larger social interest and its deprivation must have due
          sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is
          expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also
          giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted
          principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of
B         absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective
          for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its
          necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised.
          The life of an individual living in a society governed by the
          rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which
c         are 'the source in law subserve the social balance and
          function as a significant instrument for protection of human
          rights and security of the collective. It is because
          fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that
          every member of the society lives peacefully in a society
o         to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is
          why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined,
          "it is regulated freedom",

       39. From the aforesaid, it is quite clear that no individual
E has any right to hazard others' liberty. The body polity governed
  by Rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a
  disorderly society. Keeping the aforesaid perspective in view,
  the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
  argument advanced in oppugnation by the learned counsel for
F the respondent are to be appreciated. It is urged that an
  accused tried under this Act suffers detention as the trial in other
  cases are not allowed to proceed. As far as other cases are
  concerned, there is no prohibition to move an application
  taking recourse to the appropriate provision under the Code
G of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. What is stipulated under
  Section 12 of the Act is that the trial in other case is to be kept
  in abeyance. Special courts have been conferred with the
  power to try any other offence with which the accused under
  the Act is charged at the same trial. Quite apart from the above,
H
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                      849
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
the Act empowers the special courts to grant bail to an accused        A
under the Act though the provision is rigorous. Sections 19(4)
and 19(5) deal with the same. They are as follows: -

    "19. Modified application of certain provisions of the
    Code -                                                             B
    (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no
    person accused of an offence punishable under this Act
    or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be
    released on bail or on his own bond unless:
                                                                       c
      (a)   the Public Prosecutor has been given an
            opportunity to oppose the application for such
            release, and

      (b)   where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
            application, the Court is satisfied that there are         D
            reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
            guilty of such offence and that he is not likely tu
            commit any offence while on bail.

     (5) The limitations on granting of bail specified in sub-         E
     section (4) are in addition to the limitations under the
     Code."

    40. The said provisions are akin to the provisions
contained in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic         F
Substances Aet, 1985.

      41. The provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
though lays conditions precedent and they are in addition to
what has been stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
yet there is no deprivation of liberty. Be it noted, a more            G
stringent provision is contained in MCOCA under Section 21
(5). It reads as under:-

     "21 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the
     accused shall not be granted bail if it is noticed by the court   H
    850       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 7 S.C.R.


A         that he was on bail in an offence under this Act, or under
          any other Act, on the date of the offence in question."

      A three-Judge Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
  Shanti Lal Shah and Others29 dealing with said facet has
B opined thus:-

          "63. As discussed above the object of MCOCA is to
          prevent the organized crime and, therefore, there could be
          reason to deny consideration of grant of bail if one has
          committed a similar offence once again after being
C         released on bail but the same consideration cannot be
          extended to a person who commits an offence under some
          other Act, for commission of an offence under some other
          Act would not be in any case in consonance with the object
          of the Act which is enacted in order to prevent only
D         organized crime."
       Thereafter, the learned judges observed that the
  expression "or under any other Act" in the provision being
  discriminatory was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
E Constitution. Such a provision is absent in Section 19 of the
  Act. Thus, there being a provision for grant of bail, though
  restricted, we are disposed to think that the contention that the
  accused is compelled to languish In custody because of
  detention under the Act does not deserve acceptation and is,
F accordingly, negatived.

        42. The next submission of the learned counsel is that it
  is in the nature of preventive detention as is understood under
  Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India. The said contention is
  to be taken note of only to be rejected, for the concept of
G preventive detention is not even remotely attracted to the arrest
  and detention for an offence under the Act.
          43. The next proponement, as noted, pertains to the


H   29. c2oos) 13 sec 5.
     DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                        851
              [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
violation of the equality clause as enshrined under Article 14           A
of the Constitution. Mr. Garg has endeavoured to impress upon
us that the accused who is only tried by other courts gets the
benefit of speedy trial whereas the accused tried under this Act
has to suffer because trial in other courts are kept in abeyance.
We have already expressed our view that the concept of                   8
speedy and fair trial is neither smothered nor scuttled when the
trial in other courts are kept in abeyance. As far as Article 14
is concerned, we do not perceive that the procedure provided
in the Act tantamounts to denial of fundamental fairness in trial.
It does not really shock the judiciai conscience and by no stretch       C
of imagination, it can be said to be an anathema to the sense
of justice. It is neither unfair nor arbitrary. It is apposite to note
here that there is a distinction between an accused who faces
trial in other courts and the accused in the special courts
because the accused herein is tried by the Special Court as
he is a gangster as defined under Section 2(c} of the Act and            D
is involved in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage for himself or any other person.

      44. It is a crime of a different nature. Apart from normal         E
criminality, the accused is also involved in organized crime for
a different purpose and motive. The accused persons under the
Act belong to altogether a different category. The legislature has
felt that they are to be dealt with in a different manner and,
accordingly, the trial is mandated to be held by the special             F
courts in an expeditious manner. The intention of the legislature
is to curb such kind of organized crimes which have become
epidemic in the society. In Kartar Singh (supra), the majority
has said, "Legislation begins where Evil begins". The
legislature, as it seems to us, being guided by its sacrosanct           G
duty to protect the.individual members of society to enjoy their
rights without fear and see that some people do not become a
menace to the society in a singular or collective manner, has
enacted such a provision. In this context, we may refer with
profit to the authority in The Works Manager, Central Railway            H
    852       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2013) 7 S.C.R.


A Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath and others, 30 wherein a three-
  Judge Bench, though in a different context, has observed that
  certain types of enactments are more responsive to some
  urgent social demands and also have more immediate and
  visible impact on social vices by operating more directly to
8 achieve social reforms. We have referred to the said
  observations only to highlight how the legislature in a welfare
  State immediately steps in for social reforms to eradicate social
  vices. Similarly, sometimes it is compelled to take steps to
  control the frenzied criminal action of some anti-social people;
C In the case at hand it can be stated with certitude that the
  legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the
  activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stem
  delineation with such activities to establish stability in society
  where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life. It has
  to be kept uppermost in mind that control of crime by making
D appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the
  legislature in a democratic polity, for it is necessary to scuttle
  serious threats to the safety of the citizens. Therefore, the
  legislature has, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and
  requirements of the collective.
E
        45. Thus, the accused under the Act is in a distinct
    category and the differentiation between the two, namely, a
    person arrayed as an accused in respect of offences under
    other Acts and an accused under the Act is a rational one. It
F   cannot be said to be arbitrary. It does not defeat the concept
    of permissible classification. The majority in Kartar Singh
    (supra) has expressed thus: -

          "218. The principle of legislative classification is an
          accepted principle whereunder persons may be classified
G         into groups and such groups may differently be treated if
          there is a reasonable basis for such difference or
          distinction. The rule of differentiation is that in enacting laws
          differentiating between different persons or things in
H 30. (1969) 3 sec 95.
       DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P.                   853
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
       different circumstances which govern one set of persons        A
       or objects such laws may not necessarily be the same as
       those governing another set of persons or objects so that
       the question of unequal treatment does not really arise
       between persons governed by different conditions and
       different set of circumstances."                               B

     46. Tested on the touchstone of the abovestated principles,
the irresistible conclusion is that the classification is in the
permissible realm of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore,
the submission that Section 12 invites the wrath of Article 14        C
of the Constitution is sans substratum and, accordingly, we
have no hesitation in repelling the same and we so do.

     47. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we uphold the
constitutional validity of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as        D
it does not infringe any of the facets of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Ex-consequenti, the writ petition, being
devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

R.P.                                    Writ Petition dismissed.