LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) has the jurisdiction to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against members of the Assam Rifles.
CASE TYPE: Service Law, Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption
Case Name: Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. vs. Ranjit Kumar Saha & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: July 01, 2019
Date of the Judgment: July 01, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 650
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a special court established under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) be the only court to try offences under the PC Act, or can other courts, like the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC), also have jurisdiction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving members of the Assam Rifles, who were accused of corruption. This judgment clarifies the jurisdiction of the GARC in cases involving corruption charges against its members.
The core issue was whether the GARC, established under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, has the authority to try its members for offences punishable under the PC Act, or if such cases must be exclusively tried by a Special Judge appointed under the PC Act. The Supreme Court held that the GARC does have the jurisdiction to try offenses under the PC Act against members of the Assam Rifles, thus setting aside the judgment of the Guwahati High Court.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah. Justice L. Nageswara Rao authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case arose from a sting operation conducted by a contractor, Mr. C.C. Mathew, which was telecast on Matrabhumi News and Tehelka.com on September 24-25, 2014. The sting operation alleged corruption within the Assam Rifles. Following the telecast, a Court of Inquiry was convened by Headquarters, IGAR (East.), Assam Rifles on September 29, 2014, and later amended on October 1, 2014, regarding its composition. The Court of Inquiry was conducted at Srikona, Silchar, Assam, during which a Summary of Evidence was recorded.
A charge-sheet was issued by the Convening Authority to the Respondents, Subedar Ranjit Kumar Saha and Naib Subedar, under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with an alternate charge under Section 49 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. The General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) was convened on November 10, 2016.
The respondents, Ranjit Kumar Saha and another Naib Subedar, were members of the Assam Rifles. They were accused of corruption based on the sting operation. The respondents were charged under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 24-25, 2014 | Sting operation telecast on Matrabhumi News and Tehelka.com alleging corruption in Assam Rifles. |
| September 29, 2014 | Court of Inquiry convened by Headquarters, IGAR (East.), Assam Rifles. |
| October 1, 2014 | Amendment to the composition of the Court of Inquiry. |
| Srikona, Silchar, Assam | Court of Inquiry conducted and Summary of Evidence recorded. |
| November 10, 2016 | General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) convened. |
| January 9, 2017 | GARC rejected preliminary objections raised by the Respondents. |
| July 01, 2019 | Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the High Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Respondents raised preliminary objections before the GARC, including that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant during the Court of Inquiry and Summary of Evidence, that the GARC’s composition violated Section 90 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and that the GARC could not try a case under the PC Act. The GARC rejected these objections on January 9, 2017.
Aggrieved by the rejection order, the Respondents filed a Writ Petition in the Guwahati High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, declaring that the GARC could not try an offence punishable under the PC Act involving a person governed by the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. An appeal against this judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court held that only a special Judge appointed under the PC Act can try offences under the PC Act and the GARC was not a court of special judge.
Legal Framework
The case involves the interpretation of several key legal provisions:
- Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section states that any person subject to this Act who commits any civil offence shall be deemed guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable to be tried by an Assam Rifles Court. “Subject to the provisions of section 56, any person subject to this Act who at any place in, or beyond, India commits any civil offence shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if charged therewith under this section, shall be liable to be tried by an Assam Rifles Court…”
- Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section specifies the civil offences not triable by an Assam Rifles Court, such as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and rape, unless committed under specific circumstances.
- Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: Defines “civil offence” as an offence which is triable by a criminal court. “civil offence” means as offence which is triable by a criminal court;
- Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: Defines “criminal court” as a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India. “criminal court” means a court of ordinary criminal justice in any part of India;
- Section 2(r) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: Defines “offence” as any act or omission punishable under this Act and includes a civil offence. “offence” means any act or omission punishable under this Act and includes a civil offence;
- Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section states that offences punishable under the PC Act shall be tried by special Judges appointed by the Central or State Government.
- Section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section lists certain Acts, including the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, and the Navy Act, 1957, and states that the jurisdiction exercisable by any court or authority under these Acts shall not be affected by the PC Act. It also declares that for the purposes of these laws, the court of a special Judge shall be deemed to be a court of ordinary criminal justice.
- Section 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section provides that the provisions of the PC Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
The core conflict arises because the PC Act mandates that only special judges can try offences under it, while the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, allows the GARC to try any civil offence, which includes offences triable by a criminal court, which would include offences under the PC Act.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments (Union of India):
- The Additional Solicitor General argued that Sections 55 and 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, indicate that every civil offence, not exempted under Section 56, should be tried by the GARC.
- He contended that Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, defines a “civil offence” as an offence triable by a criminal court, and Section 2(h) defines a criminal court as a court of ordinary criminal justice.
- The Appellants argued that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, falls within the scope of Section 25 of the PC Act, referring to S.R.O. 318 issued under the Army Act, 1950, which made the Army Act applicable to every unit of the Armed Forces.
- The Appellants also relied on Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, which deemed members of the Assam Rifles part of the Indian Army for certain purposes.
- The Appellants submitted that both the GARC and the Court of a Special Judge under the PC Act have jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act, and there is no ouster of jurisdiction for the GARC.
Respondents’ Arguments (Ranjit Kumar Saha & Anr.):
- The Respondents argued that Section 25 of the PC Act does not apply to the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, as it is not mentioned in the section.
- They contended that only a Special Judge under the PC Act can try offences under the PC Act.
- Since the GARC was not declared a court of special Judge, it cannot have jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act.
The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellants lies in the attempt to bring the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, under the ambit of Section 25 of the PC Act by referring to S.R.O. 318 issued under the Army Act, 1950 and Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, which was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court.
Submissions
| Appellants (Union of India) | Respondents (Ranjit Kumar Saha & Anr.) |
|---|---|
| GARC has jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Section 25 of the PC Act does not apply to the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. |
| Civil offences include offences triable by a criminal court as per Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Only a Special Judge under the PC Act can try offences under the PC Act. |
| Criminal court is defined as a court of ordinary criminal justice under Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | GARC was not declared a court of special Judge, hence no jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act. |
| The Assam Rifles Act, 2006 falls within the scope of Section 25 of the PC Act, due to S.R.O. 318 issued under the Army Act, 1950. | |
| Reliance on Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, to claim that members of the Assam Rifles were part of the Indian Army for certain purposes. | |
| Both GARC and the Court of a Special Judge under the PC Act have jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue can be summarized as:
- Whether the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) has the jurisdiction to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against members of the Assam Rifles.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the GARC has jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act against members of the Assam Rifles. | The Supreme Court held that the GARC does have the jurisdiction to try offenses under the PC Act against members of the Assam Rifles. The Court reasoned that Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, allows the GARC to try any civil offence, which includes offences triable by a criminal court, and the PC Act does not explicitly exclude the GARC’s jurisdiction. The Court also invoked the principle of harmonious construction to reconcile the apparent conflict between the two statutes. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
- State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication. The Court referred to para 13 of this case.
- Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, (1964) 2 SCR 87: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication.
- Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1967) 3 SCR 399: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, (1971) 1 SCC 442: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication and that statutes in pari materia should be construed harmoniously. The Court referred to para 5 of this case.
- R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication.
- Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 537: This case was cited to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication.
- Ram Chandra Mawa Lal v. State of U.P., (1984) Supp SCC 28: This case was cited to support the principle that a special statute will supersede a general enactment if they are in conflict, but if they can operate coterminously, the general statute will not be repealed. The Court referred to para 48 of this case.
Legal Provisions:
- Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section was analyzed to determine the jurisdiction of the GARC over civil offences committed by members of the Assam Rifles.
- Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section was examined to identify the civil offences not triable by the GARC.
- Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section was used to define “civil offence” as an offence triable by a criminal court.
- Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006: This section was used to define “criminal court” as a court of ordinary criminal justice.
- Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section was examined to understand that offences under the PC Act are to be tried by Special Judges.
- Section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section was analyzed to determine if the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, was included within its scope.
- Section 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This section was analyzed to understand that the PC Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How the Court Considered It |
|---|---|
| State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal. |
| Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, (1964) 2 SCR 87 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal. |
| Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1967) 3 SCR 399 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal. |
| Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, (1971) 1 SCC 442 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal and harmonious construction. |
| R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal. |
| Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 537 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle against implied repeal. |
| Ram Chandra Mawa Lal v. State of U.P., (1984) Supp SCC 28 [Supreme Court of India] | Followed to support the principle that a special statute will supersede a general enactment if they are in conflict, but if they can operate coterminously, the general statute will not be repealed. |
| Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 | Analyzed to determine the jurisdiction of the GARC over civil offences. |
| Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 | Examined to identify civil offences not triable by the GARC. |
| Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 | Used to define “civil offence.” |
| Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 | Used to define “criminal court.” |
| Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Examined to understand that offences under the PC Act are to be tried by Special Judges. |
| Section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Analyzed to determine if the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, was included within its scope. |
| Section 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Analyzed to understand that the PC Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that the GARC has jurisdiction to try civil offences under Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Accepted. The Court agreed that Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, allows the GARC to try civil offences. |
| Appellants’ submission that civil offences include offences triable by a criminal court as per Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the definition of civil offences under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. |
| Appellants’ submission that criminal court is defined as a court of ordinary criminal justice under Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Accepted. The Court agreed with the definition of criminal court under the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. |
| Appellants’ submission that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, falls within the scope of Section 25 of the PC Act, due to S.R.O. 318 issued under the Army Act, 1950. | Rejected. The Court held that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 is not included in Section 25(1) of the PC Act. |
| Appellants’ submission relying on Section 11 of the Assam Rifles Act, 1941, to claim that members of the Assam Rifles were part of the Indian Army for certain purposes. | Rejected. The Court rejected the submission that the S.R.O. issued under the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 would continue to hold the field after the repeal of the 1941 Act and the promulgation of the 2006 Act. |
| Appellants’ submission that both GARC and the Court of a Special Judge under the PC Act have jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act. | Partially Accepted. The Court held that the GARC has jurisdiction, but did not explicitly comment on whether the Special Judge also has jurisdiction. |
| Respondents’ submission that Section 25 of the PC Act does not apply to the Assam Rifles Act, 2006. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, is not mentioned in Section 25 of the PC Act. |
| Respondents’ submission that only a Special Judge under the PC Act can try offences under the PC Act. | Partially Rejected. The Court held that the GARC also has jurisdiction, thereby not accepting the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge. |
| Respondents’ submission that the GARC was not declared a court of special Judge, hence no jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act. | Rejected. The Court held that the GARC has jurisdiction to try offences under the PC Act, despite not being declared a special court. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the principle of harmonious construction, stating that the statutes should be read together to give effect to both, as far as possible. The Court also held that the later local statute (Assam Rifles Act, 2006) would be an exception to the general statute (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).
- The Court relied on State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389, Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, (1964) 2 SCR 87, Northern India Caterers (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1967) 3 SCR 399, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, (1971) 1 SCC 442, R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335, and Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 537 to support the principle that there is a presumption against repeal by implication, and that statutes should be read harmoniously.
- The Court relied on Ram Chandra Mawa Lal v. State of U.P., (1984) Supp SCC 28 to support the principle that a special statute will supersede a general enactment if they are in conflict, but if they can operate coterminously, the general statute will not be repealed.
- The Court analyzed Section 55 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to determine the jurisdiction of the GARC over civil offences committed by members of the Assam Rifles.
- The Court examined Section 56 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to identify the civil offences not triable by the GARC.
- The Court used Section 2(e) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to define “civil offence” and Section 2(h) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 to define “criminal court.”
- The Court examined Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to understand that offences under the PC Act are to be tried by Special Judges.
- The Court analyzed Section 25 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and concluded that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006 was not included within its scope.
- The Court analyzed Section 28 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to understand that the PC Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:
- Harmonious Construction: The Court emphasized the need to interpret the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a way that both statutes can operate without conflict. The Court found that there was no irreconcilable conflict.
- Presumption Against Implied Repeal: The Court highlighted the principle that a later law does not automatically repeal an earlier law unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict.
- Special vs. General Statute: The Court considered the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, as a special statute applicable to a specific group (members of the Assam Rifles), and the PC Act as a general statute. It held that the special statute would be treated as an exception to the general statute to the extent of the conflict.
- Definition of Civil Offence and Criminal Court: The Court relied on the definitions of “civil offence” and “criminal court” in the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, to conclude that offences under the PC Act could be tried by the GARC.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Harmonious Construction | 40% |
| Presumption Against Implied Repeal | 30% |
| Special vs. General Statute | 20% |
| Definition of Civil Offence and Criminal Court | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%).
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning can be represented as follows:
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) has the jurisdiction to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against members of the Assam Rifles. This ruling was based on the following key principles:
- Harmonious Construction: The Court emphasized that the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should be interpreted harmoniously to avoid conflict. The Court found that both statutes could operate concurrently.
- Presumption Against Implied Repeal: The Court reiterated the principle that a later law does not automatically repeal an earlier law unless there is a clear and irreconcilable conflict. In this case, the Court found no such conflict between the two Acts.
- Special vs. General Statute: The Court considered the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, as a special statute applicable to members of the Assam Rifles, and the PC Act as a general statute. The Court held that the special statute would be treated as an exception to the general statute to the extent of the conflict.
- Definition of Civil Offence and Criminal Court: The Court relied on the definitions of “civil offence” and “criminal court” in the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, to conclude that offences under the PC Act could be tried by the GARC.
The Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the order of the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC), which had rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents. The Court held that the GARC had jurisdiction to try the Respondents for offences under the PC Act.
Dissenting Opinion
There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the judgment.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s judgment has significant implications:
- Jurisdiction of Assam Rifles Courts: The judgment clarifies that the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) has the jurisdiction to try its members for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This means that members of the Assam Rifles accused of corruption can be tried by the GARC, rather than exclusively by Special Judges appointed under the PC Act.
- Harmonious Construction of Statutes: The judgment reinforces the principle of harmonious construction of statutes, emphasizing that courts should interpret laws in a way that both can operate without conflict.
- Special vs. General Statute: The judgment clarifies that a special statute will be treated as an exception to a general statute to the extent of any conflict. This principle will guide future interpretations of conflicts between specific and general laws.
- Consistency in Service Law: The judgment provides consistency in the application of service law, ensuring that members of the Assam Rifles are subject to the jurisdiction of their own courts for offences committed within the scope of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
The judgment has clarified the jurisdictional powers of the GARC and has set a precedent for similar cases that may arise in the future.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Ranjit Kumar Saha is a significant ruling that clarifies the jurisdiction of the General Assam Rifles Court (GARC) in corruption cases involving its members. The Court held that the GARC has the authority to try offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against members of the Assam Rifles. This decision was based on the principles of harmonious construction, the presumption against implied repeal, and the distinction between special and general statutes. The judgment ensures that members of the Assam Rifles are subject to the jurisdiction of their own courts for offences committed within the scope of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006, while also upholding the objectives of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.