THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. ANWAR ALI SARKAR

Case Analysis

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. ANWAR ALI SARKAR

April 13, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284, stands as a landmark decision in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly concerning Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court dealt with the constitutionality of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, particularly Section 5(1), which granted unregulated discretion to the State Government to refer “cases” to Special Courts for speedier trials under a separate procedural code distinct from the Criminal Procedure Code. The core constitutional question was whether such unfettered delegation of power violated the principle of equal protection of laws.

The majority of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Fazl Ali, Mahajan, Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar and Bose, held that Section 5(1), insofar as it empowered the State Government to refer individual cases for trial without any guiding policy or reasonable classification, violated Article 14 and was therefore unconstitutional and void. However, Justice Patanjali Sastri (C.J.) dissented, asserting that the purpose of the legislation—to facilitate speedier trials—was a sufficient basis for classification and delegation, provided it was exercised in good faith. Justice Das offered a nuanced view, partially upholding the section by interpreting it as implicitly necessitating rational classification, thus severing only the portion referring to “individual cases”.

The case has enduring significance as it laid down the foundational principles of “reasonable classification”, arbitrariness, legislative competence, and due process, influencing the future evolution of constitutional law in India.

Keywords: Article 14, Special Courts Act, equality before law, reasonable classification, unregulated discretion, arbitrariness, due process.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar

ii) Case Number:
Civil Revision Cases Nos. 942 and 1113 of 1951 (appeals numbered as 297 and 298 of 1951)

iii) Judgement Date:
11th January, 1952

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Patnajali Sastri C.J., Fazl Ali, Mahajan, Mukherjea, Das, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Vivian Bose JJ.

vi) Author:
Multiple opinions; majority by Fazl Ali J. and others, dissent by Patanjali Sastri C.J.

vii) Citation:
[1952] SCR 284

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 14 of the Constitution of India
West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, particularly Section 5(1)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (predecessor of CrPC, 1973)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None explicitly overruled, but earlier assumptions about executive discretion were significantly curtailed.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In the years immediately following independence, India grappled with civil unrest and rising criminal activity, prompting several legislative measures aimed at maintaining public order. One such law was the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, enacted to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences. It empowered the State Government to set up Special Courts with distinct procedures from the standard criminal justice system. This act was challenged by Anwar Ali Sarkar, who, along with 49 others, was convicted by a Special Court under a notification issued by the West Bengal Government. He argued that the procedure violated his right to equality under Article 14. This triggered a significant constitutional examination of whether legislative and executive powers could permit selective procedural treatment without infringing fundamental rights.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent, Anwar Ali Sarkar, and 49 co-accused were charged with committing a violent raid on the Jessop Factory at Dum Dum, involving multiple serious offences including murder, unlawful assembly, and use of explosives. They were tried by a Special Court established under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, which adopted a different procedural scheme than the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial was initiated via a notification under Section 5(1) of the Act, which allowed the State Government to refer “cases or classes of cases” to the Special Court.

Sarkar petitioned the Calcutta High Court under Article 226, claiming that Section 5(1) violated Article 14 by giving the government arbitrary power to pick and choose cases for a trial under a different, potentially disadvantageous, procedural regime. The High Court agreed and struck down the conviction, leading to the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 violates Article 14 of the Constitution by conferring uncontrolled discretion on the State Government?

ii) Whether the speedier trial objective of the Act provides a reasonable basis for classification under Article 14?

iii) Whether a law allowing different procedural rights for similarly placed accused persons is constitutionally valid?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The West Bengal Government acted within its power to establish Special Courts and that the special procedure did not deny any accused a fair trial.
The legislation was passed with a legitimate objective—speedier justice in select cases involving public interest or urgency—and this justified differential treatment.
The State’s discretion, though broad, was not arbitrary and was guided by the policy goal of ensuring effective and prompt administration of justice.
The Act was prospective, and the discretion given under Section 5(1) did not create inequality as long as it was exercised uniformly and in accordance with public interest.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Respondent submitted that:

The Act failed to define any intelligible differentia or objective basis on which the State could choose cases for referral to Special Courts.
This unfettered discretion meant that two persons charged with the same offence could be tried under entirely different procedures, violating the principle of equal protection.
The Special Court procedure denied the accused important safeguards, such as committal proceedings, and allowed for summary trials, thereby making it less advantageous than a regular criminal trial.
The lack of classification or guidelines in the Act led to arbitrary action by the Executive, rendering Section 5(1) unconstitutional.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Article 14 of the Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Indian Kanoon Link

ii) West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 – Section 5(1)
This section empowered the government to refer individual “cases” or “classes of cases” to the Special Courts.

iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
The procedural code in force at the time which guaranteed more extensive trial protections including committal proceedings, jury trials, and right to appeal.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The majority held that Section 5(1) violated Article 14 because it:

Provided no reasonable classification or guidance to distinguish between cases that could be referred to Special Courts.
Left absolute discretion in the hands of the executive without legislative safeguards.
Allowed for a different trial procedure to be applied selectively, leading to unequal treatment of similarly situated accused.

The Court relied on Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1950 SCR 759] and Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras [1950 SCR 594] to emphasize that laws enabling arbitrary discretion are void even if their application is selectively fair.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) Justice Bose suggested that Article 14 was not about mathematical equality, but about what “the collective conscience of a sovereign democratic republic” would consider just and reasonable. Even subtle inequality would fail constitutional muster if the conscience of the citizenry perceived it as discriminatory.

c. GUIDELINES

The judgment did not lay down formal procedural guidelines, but established doctrinal guidance by asserting that:

Delegated legislative power must be accompanied by rational standards.
Differential procedures for similar offences must be backed by intelligible and rational classification.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar judgment remains a foundational exposition of constitutional equality and procedural fairness. It clarified that laws cannot give executive authorities a carte blanche to decide who should receive preferential or differential treatment. Equality before law includes not just substantive but also procedural equality, and a different procedure cannot be used to disadvantage individuals unless a clear rational basis exists.

By striking down Section 5(1) in part, the Court balanced the State’s interest in efficient justice with the individual’s right to a fair trial. This case has since informed constitutional interpretations in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978 SCR (2) 621] and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974 SCR (2) 348], where the arbitrariness doctrine became central to equality jurisprudence.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

[1] Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 594
[2] Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] SCR 759
[3] Dr. Khare v. State of Delhi, [1950] SCR 519
[4] Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, [1950] SCR 869
[5] State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, [1951] SCR 682
[6] Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
[7] Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312