J. S. Verma, J. - (1.) Leave granted in special leave petitions.
(2.) In Kartar Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc., (1994) 3 SCC 569 , the Constitution Bench while upholding the constitutional validity of the provisions in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "the TADA Act") except Section 22 therein, noticed the general perception that there was some misuse of the stringent provisions by the authorities concerned. To prevent any possible misuse of the stringent provisions, the Constitution Bench suggested a strict review of these cases in its observations made as under:- "In order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and applicability to TADA Act, there must be a screening Committee or a Review Committee constituted by the Central Government consisting of the Home Secretary, Law Secretary and other Secretaries concerned of the various Departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the States' action in the application of the TADA provisions in the respective States, and the incidental questions arising in relation thereto. Similarly, there must be a Screening or Review Committee at the State level constituted by the respective States consisting of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Law Secretary, Director General of Police (Law and Order) and other officials as the respective Government may think it fit, to review the action of the enforcing authorities under the Act and screen the cases registered under the provisions of the Act and decide the further course of action in every matter and so on." (at p. 683)
(3.) It appears that in compliance with the above observations of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra), a Screening Committee or a Review Committee was constituted by the Government in several States including Delhi. A High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of Delhi reviewed the prosecutions made under the TADA Act and the Government of Delhi conveyed its approval to the Director of Prosecution, Delhi for deletion of the charge under the TADA Act in the specified criminal cases pending before the Designated Court. The learned Special Additional Public Prosecutor filed applications in the Designated Court for withdrawal of charges under the TADA Act in all those cases pending in the Designated Court. It appears that the only reasons assigned for withdrawal of charges under the TADA Act by the learned Public Prosecutor was the recommendation of the High Power Committee which was constituted to review the cases in accordance with the observations of this Court in Kartar Singh. The Designated Court has dismissed those applications taking the view that administrative decisions cannot interfere with the working of the judicial system. Apparently, the view taken is that a mere administrative decision taken on the basis of the recommendation of the Review Committee is not sufficient to permit withdrawal of a criminal prosecution pending in a Court of law.;