CASE NAME – KATHI RANING RAWAT V STATE OF SAURASHTRA

BEFORE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DECIDED ON – 27 FEBRUARY 1952
BENCH – CJ PATANJALI SHASTRI, JUSTICE FAZAL ALI, JUSTICE
MUKHARJEA,JUSTICE MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE, JUSTICE
CHANDRASHEKHARA AIYAR, JUSTICE DAS
AUTHOR – CJ PATANJALI SHASTRI, JUSTICE FAZAL ALI, JUSTICE
MUKHARJEA,JUSTICE MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, JUSTICE VIVIAN BOSE, JUSTICE
CHANDRASHEKHARA AIYAR, JUSTICE DAS
RELEVANT ACT – SAURASHTRA STATE PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES ACT
BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Kathi Raning Rawat was convicted under section 307, section 302 and section 392 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was tried by special court which was
constituted under section 11 of Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures inserted by third
amendment in 1949 which was pronounced by Rajpramukh. Kathi raning Rawat was sentenced
to death and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. His sentence was later upheld by the state High
Court and aggrieved by the decision of the state High Court Kathi Raning Rawat appealed in the
Supreme Court against the decision of the special court and state High Court.
The provisions questioned herein according to Section 9 the State by notification may constitute
Special Courts for such 'areas as may be specified in the notification and section 10 provides for
appointment of Special Judges to preside over such courts.Section 11 enacts that the Special
Judge shall try "such offences or classes of offences or such cases or classes of cases as the
Government may direct them to do so.
ISSUES BEFORE COURT
Whether the provisions of Ordinance, Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures is in
contravention with the provision laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Whether Ordinance is illegal as it amounts to delegation of essential legislative powers by the
State Legislature to the Executive?
RATIO OF THE COURT
According to Justice Patanjali Shastri legislative differentiation is no always necessarily
discriminatory. Claim under article 14 is dealt with the presumption that actions performed by
the state are justified and reasonable. Though differing procedures might involve disparity in
treatment of persons tried under them, such disparity is not in itself sufficient to outweigh this
presumption. Whereas justice Fazal Ali was of the opinion that a distinction should be drawn
between discrimination with reason and the one without reason. Justice Mukhreja the statute
cannot be held discriminatory due the fact that it has been properly enacted but power to carry
out the provision is vested by statute upon officers or body of administrators. Justice Das held
that section 11 of the said ordinance does not confer any uncontrolled or unguided power on the
state government and due to the reasons mentioned herein the section 11 of Saurashtra State
Safety Measures was held not be violative of the article 14 of the Constitution.
While giving dissenting opinion Justice Mahajan was of the that in section 11 there was no
reasonable basis of classification provided. Justice Chandrshekhara Iyer was of the view that
neither the provisions nor the preamble of the act provide any classification on the basis of
person would be treated and hence, held it to be violative of article 14. Justice Bose also held the
said provision invalid due the reasoning mentioned herein.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court overruled the objection which was claimed by the appellant regarding
Saurashtra State Safety Measures Act.