MCOCA in the Supreme Court

In one line

Three decisions decide how this Act works: one on competence and interception, one on bail, and one on the approval that lets a case be registered at all.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the Act's constitutionality was upheld in State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra; its bail provision was made workable by Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra; and the prior approval required before registration was held to require an application of mind in Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra.

Competence, and the interception provisions

Facts. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5. The interception provisions, sections 13 to 16, were challenged on the ground that interception of communications falls within entry 31 of the Union List, which covers posts and telegraphs, telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication, so that a State Legislature could not enact them. Section 21(5), which then barred bail to a person who had been on bail "in an offence under this Act, or under any other Act", was challenged separately under Article 14. The Bombay High Court struck the interception provisions down and excised the words "or under any other Act" from section 21(5).

Held. The Supreme Court reversed on interception. In pith and substance sections 13 to 16 relate to the prevention and investigation of organised crime, which is within the State's competence; the grounds on which interception may be authorised under section 14 are distinct from those in section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; and any encroachment on the Union field is incidental. On bail it upheld the High Court's excision of the words "or under any other Act" from section 21(5), as an unreasonable classification offending Article 14.

Why it matters. It is the authority both for the validity of the interception scheme and for the present, narrower text of section 21(5). A student who quotes section 21(5) with the excised words states a provision that no longer stands.

Competence, and the definition

Facts. Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 5 SCC 246. The definition of organised crime in section 2(1)(e) includes acting with the objective of promoting insurgency. It was argued that those words made the Act a law on terrorism, a subject for Parliament, so that the State Act was beyond competence and repugnant to central legislation.

Held. The State's competence was upheld. The words "promoting insurgency" must be read in the context of a definition directed at pecuniary and economic advantage, so that in pith and substance the Act is a law on public order and police within entries 1 and 2 of the State List.