A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak and Another (1988)

Case Summary: A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak and Another (1988)

**Case Stats:**

Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1986
Date of Decision: 29-04-1988
Bench: Full Bench
Hon'ble Judges: Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J; S. Ranganathan, J; S. Natarajan, J; Ranganath Misra, J; M. N. Venkatachaliah, J; G. L. Oza, J; B. C. Ray, J
Advocates: P.P. Rao, R.D. Ovlekar, M.N. Dwevedi, Salman Khurshid, N.V. Pradhan, Ram Jethmalani, Rani Jethmalani, Ashok Sharma, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S. Bhasme
Final Decision: Dismissed
All Citations: AIR 1988 SC 1531; (1989) 1 BLJR 25; (1988) 90 BOMLR 312; (1988) CriLJ 1661; (1988) 2 Crimes 753; (1988) 2 JT 325; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1988) 1 SCR 1 Supp

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=303277

Facts of the Case

The appellant, A.R. Antulay, became Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 9 June 1980. Allegations of corruption were brought against him by respondent R.S. Nayak, a BJP member, leading to requests for sanction to prosecute under Section 197 CrPC and Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the Governor partially granted sanction, the respondent filed a fresh complaint before a Special Judge including allegations for which sanction was refused. Multiple jurisdictional objections were raised by the appellant, leading to several transfers and appeals up to the Supreme Court. The controversy centered on whether the 1984 Supreme Court directions to transfer trial from the Special Judge to the Bombay High Court were legally valid and whether such directions infringed the appellant's rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Law Points Raised

1. Validity of the Supreme Court’s 1984 directions transferring trial to the High Court without pleadings or consent.
2. Whether such transfer violated the appellant’s right to be tried by a competent court under the 1952 Act.
3. Whether cognizance taken by the Special Judge without proper allocation notification was valid.
4. Applicability of Section 197 CrPC sanction requirements.
5. Scope of Articles 14 and 21 in ensuring a fair and expeditious trial.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

• Constitution of India: Articles 139, 14, 21
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952: Sections 6, 7, 7(1)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 137, 190, 197, 197(1), 25, 460(e)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Judgments Referred

• Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCR 482
• Previous Constitution Bench decision dated 16 February 1984 on sanction and trial transfer

Obiter Dicta

The Court emphasized that expeditious trial is in the interest of both prosecution and accused, forming part of Article 21's guarantee of fair procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The 1984 directions were held to be beyond the scope of judicial power under the circumstances, as they deprived the appellant of the statutory right to be tried by a Special Judge and to avail appeals under the 1952 Act.

Final Ruling

The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the previous directions were not proper, but since proceedings had advanced substantially, they would not be set aside. The cognizance and trial process remained valid.

Relevant Paragraph Numbers

Paras: 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18

Summary

This landmark judgment clarified the scope of judicial powers in transferring criminal trials, reinforced the importance of procedural rights under Articles 14 and 21, and underscored that expeditious trial is integral to the concept of fair trial.