{"id":100903,"date":"1982-05-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-05-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982"},"modified":"2015-08-25T21:14:13","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T15:44:13","slug":"phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","title":{"rendered":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1178, \t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 769<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/05\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1178\t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 769\n 1982 SCC  (2) 389\t  1982 SCALE  (1)496\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC1095\t (6,13)\n RF\t    1991 SC1983\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n     Conservation of  Foreign  Exchange\t and  Prevention  of\nSmuggling Activities Act 1974, Ss. 8 and II and Constitution\nof India, 1950, Article 22 (5).\n     Advisory  Board-Legal   representation  or\t  'friendly'\nrepresentation to detenu-Grant of facility-When arises.\n     Detention order-Representation  of the  detenu  to\t the\nCentral\t Government-What   is-Bout  De\t Papiere  to   Prime\nMinister-Petitions memorial  to\t Minister-Whether  statutory\nrepresentation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The two  petitioners who  were  British  nationals\t and\nfriends and  collaborators  in\tsmuggling  enterprises\twere\ndetained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign\nExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 for\nsmuggling electronic equipment and goods worth several lakhs\nof rupees  in secret  compartments and\thidden cavities of a\nMercedez Benz van.\n     The High  Court dismissed\ttheir petitions\t for release\nfrom detention.\n     In\t their\twrit  petitions\t under\tArticle\t 32  it\t was\ncontended that:\t (1) the  representation made by them to the\nCentral Government to revoke the orders of detention as long\nback as March 1982 remained undisposed of and on this ground\nalone they  were entitled  to be  released; (2)\t the Bout De\nPapier presented  to the  Prime Minister of India during her\nvisit to  England pointing  out that  the order of detention\npassed against\tthe petitioners\t might\tbe  lifted  and\t the\ndetenus be  either released  or charged and brought to trial\nwithout delay,\thad not\t been disposed of; and (3) that they\nhad been  denied the  right to\tbe  represented\t before\t the\nAdvisory Board\tby an Advocate or at least by a 'friend' and\nthus they  were denied an opportunity to make an appropriate\nand effective representation to the Advisory Board.\n     Dismissing the petitions,\n^\n     HELD:  (1)\t  Representations   from   whatever   source\naddressed to  whomsoever officer  of one or other department\nof the\tGovernment cannot  be treated  as representations to\nthe Government under the COFEPOSA. [772 D]\n     (2) The  Bout De Papier presented to the Prime Minister\nduring her  visit to  Britain and  the\tsubsequent  reminder\naddressed to the External Affairs Ministry by\n770\nthe British  High Commission  are not representations to the\nCentral\t  Government.\t They\twere\tmerely\t  diplomatic\ncommunications between\tthe Governments of the two countries\nwhich  will   be  answered  through  appropriate  diplomatic\nchannels in  proper  time.  Such  diplomatic  communications\nbetween\t one  country  and  another  cannot  be\t treated  as\nrepresentations to  the\t statutory  authorities\t functioning\nunder the COFEPOSA. [771 G-H; 772 A-E]\n     3(i) The  Advisory Board  consisting of three Judges of\nthe High  Court considered it unnecessary and inadvisable to\nallow legal representation to the detenus. That was a matter\nfor decision  of the Advisory Board and this Court would not\nbe justified  to substitute  its judgment  in place  of\t the\nBoards judgment. [774 C]\n     (ii)  A   'friendly'  representation  would  have\tbeen\nprovided by  the Board\thad it been demanded. But it was not\nfor the Advisory Board to offer 'friendly' representation to\nthe detenus without being asked for. [774 D-E]\n     In the  instant case  the order  of detention  made  on\nJanuary 7,  1982 was  considered by  the Advisory  Board  on\nFebruary 8,  1982 and  its report  showed that the detention\nwas justified. [775 C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petition  (Criminal)\tNos.<br \/>\n271-272 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t  (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)<br \/>\n     Ram  Jethmalani   and  Miss  Rani\tJethmalani  for\t the<br \/>\nPetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     R.K. Garg and A.V. Rangam, for the Respondents.<br \/>\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.  Richard  Beale  and\tPaul  Duncan<br \/>\nZawadzki, two  British nationals,  said to  be\tfriends\t and<br \/>\ncollaborators  in   smuggling  enterprises   are  now  under<br \/>\ndetention  under  the  provisions  of  the  Conservation  of<br \/>\nForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act.<br \/>\nRichard Beale  arrived at  Madras from Singapore on December<br \/>\n11, 1981.  He brought  with him\t a  Mercedez  Benz  van.  On<br \/>\nexamination by the customs authorities, the van was found to<br \/>\nhave secret  compartments and  hidden cavities. It was laced<br \/>\nand lined,  as\tit  were,  with\t all  manner  of  electronic<br \/>\nequipment and  goods worth  several lakhs of rupees. Richard<br \/>\nBeale was interrogated and made a statement. He was arrested<br \/>\nand produced  before the  learned Metropolitan Magistrate of<br \/>\nMadras. His  friend and\t collaborator Paul  Duncan Zawadzki,<br \/>\nwho had\t separately arrived  in India  and who\tattempted to<br \/>\ncontact Richard Beale, was also interrogated, later arrested<br \/>\nand produced  before the  Metropolitan Magistrate. Orders of<br \/>\ndetention under the COFEPOSA<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">771<\/span><br \/>\nwere made  against both\t of them  on  January  7,  1982\t and<br \/>\ngrounds of  detention were  duly served on them. The detenus<br \/>\nmoved the  High Court  of Tamil\t Nadu for their release from<br \/>\ndetention, but\ttheir applications were dismissed. They have<br \/>\nnow come  to this Court seeking Writs of Habeas Corpus under<br \/>\nArt. 32\t of the\t Constitution. The two petitions were argued<br \/>\ntogether by  Shri Jethmalani  and they\tmay be\tconveniently<br \/>\ndisposed of by a single order.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The first\tsubmission of  the learned  Counsel was that<br \/>\nthe representation  made  by  the  detenus  to\tthe  Central<br \/>\nGovernment to revoke the orders of detention so long back as<br \/>\nMarch, 1982 remained undisposed of till this day and on that<br \/>\nground alone, the detenus were entitled to be released. Shri<br \/>\nJethmalani drew\t my attention to S. 11 of the COFEPOSA which<br \/>\nenables the  Central Government to revoke or modify an order<br \/>\nof detention  made by  the State  Government or its officers<br \/>\nand to the decisions of this Court laying down that delay by<br \/>\nthe Central  Government in  dealing with  representations of<br \/>\nthe detenu  would also\tentail\tthe  detention\tinvalidating<br \/>\nitself.\t Apart\tfrom  the  fact\t that  there  is  no  proper<br \/>\nfoundation for the submission, I am not satisfied that there<br \/>\nis any\tmerit in  the submission.  The Writ  Petitions\twere<br \/>\nfiled on  March 12,  1982 and there was then no hint of this<br \/>\nsubmission. The\t counter-affidavit on behalf of the State of<br \/>\nTamil Nadu was filed on April 5, 1982. Thereafter, the clerk<br \/>\nof the\tlearned Counsel\t for the Petitioners has sworn to an<br \/>\naffidavit mentioning  the facts\t giving rise  to the present<br \/>\nsubmission. It\tappears from  the affidavit  that  when\t the<br \/>\nPrime Minister\tof India  was recently in England, a Bout De<br \/>\nPapier was  presented to  the delegation  accompanying\ther,<br \/>\nexpressing concern  about the  detention  without  trial  of<br \/>\nRichard Beale  and Paul\t Duncan Zawadzki and suggesting that<br \/>\nthe detention order might be &#8216;lifted&#8217; and the detenus either<br \/>\nreleased or  charged and  brought to trial without delay. It<br \/>\nfurther appears\t that the  British High\t Commission in India<br \/>\nalso addressed\tthe Ministry of External Affairs, Government<br \/>\nof India,  and reminded\t them  about  the  Bout\t De  Papiere<br \/>\npresented to  the Prime\t Minister&#8217;s  delegation\t in  Britain<br \/>\nduring\ther   visit  to\t that  country.\t According  to\tShri<br \/>\nJethmalani, the\t Bout De  Papiere  presented  to  the  Prime<br \/>\nMinister&#8217;s delegation in Britain and the subsequent reminder<br \/>\nby the\tBritish High  Commission constitute a representation<br \/>\nto  the\t  Central  Government\tdemanding  their   immediate<br \/>\nconsideration in  terms of the provisions of the COFEPOSA. I<br \/>\nhave no\t doubt that  the Bout  De Papier  and the  reminder,<br \/>\ndiplomatic<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">772<\/span><br \/>\ncommunications that  they are between the Governments of the<br \/>\ntwo countries,\twill be\t attended to  and  answered  through<br \/>\nappropriate diplomatic\tchannels in  proper  time  and\twith<br \/>\nnecessary expedition.  But I find it difficult to treat such<br \/>\ndiplomatic communications between one country and another as<br \/>\nrepresentations to  the\t statutory  authorities\t functioning<br \/>\nunder  the   COFEPOSA,\tas   representations  which  require<br \/>\nimmediate consideration\t by the\t statutory  authorities\t and<br \/>\nwhich if  not  considered  immediately,\t would\tentitle\t the<br \/>\ndetenus to  be set  at liberty.\t Nor is it possible to treat<br \/>\nthe countless petitions, memorials and representations which<br \/>\nare everywhere\tpresented to  the Prime\t Minister and  other<br \/>\nMinisters as  statutory appeals\t or  petitions,\t statutorily<br \/>\nobliging them  to consider  and dispose\t of such appeals and<br \/>\npetitions in  the manner  provided by  statute. No doubt the<br \/>\nPrime Minister\tand other  Ministers, as leaders in whom the<br \/>\npeople have  reposed faith  and confidence,  will deal\twith<br \/>\nsuch appeals  and petitions  with due and deserved despatch.<br \/>\nBut quite  obviously that  will\t not  be  because  they\t are<br \/>\ndischarging statutory  obligations. It\tis not also possible<br \/>\nto treat  representations from\twhatever source addressed to<br \/>\nwhomsoever  officer  of\t one  or  other\t department  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment as  a representation\t to the Government requiring<br \/>\nthe appropriate authority under the COFEPOSA to consider the<br \/>\nmatter. I do not consider that the Bout de Papiere presented<br \/>\nto the\tPrime Minister\tduring her  visit to Britain and the<br \/>\nsubsequent  reminder   addressed  to  the  External  Affairs<br \/>\nMinistry by  the British High Commission are representations<br \/>\nto the\tCentral Government  which are  required to  be dealt<br \/>\nwith in the manner provided by the COFEPOSA.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  next submitted  by the learned Counsel that the<br \/>\nChief Minister,\t who according\tto the\tRules of Business of<br \/>\nthe Government\tof Tamil  Nadu, was  required to  deal\twith<br \/>\nmatters relating to preventive detention neither applied his<br \/>\nmind  to   the\tmaking\tof  the\t orders\t of  detention,\t nor<br \/>\nconsidered the\trepresentation of  the detenus\thimself. The<br \/>\nrelevant files have been produced by the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe State  of Tamil  Nadu and  on perusing  them, I  find no<br \/>\nsubstance in the submission of the learned Counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The submission  which was most strenuously urged by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t was that  the detenus\thad been  denied the<br \/>\nright to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">773<\/span><br \/>\nbe represented\tbefore the  Advisory Board by an Advocate or<br \/>\nat least  by a\tfriend and  that they  were thus  denied the<br \/>\nright to  make a  proper and effective representation to the<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board.  This\twas  sufficient,  said\tthe  learned<br \/>\nCounsel, to vitiate the detention. The learned Counsel urged<br \/>\nthat the  detenus were foreign nationals and they were under<br \/>\na handicap being ignorant of the laws and procedures of this<br \/>\ncountry.  To  deny  legal  representation  to  them  was  an<br \/>\nunreasonable  exercise\tof  the\t discretion  vested  in\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory  Board\t  to  permit   or  not\t to   permit   legal<br \/>\nrepresentation. According to the learned Counsel, this was a<br \/>\nclear case  where  legal  representation  should  have\tbeen<br \/>\npermitted. In  any case,  it was urged, the detenus ought to<br \/>\nhave been offered at least &#8216;friendly&#8217; representation, if not<br \/>\nlegal representation. Reliance was placed upon the following<br \/>\nobservations of\t the Constitution Bench in A.K. Roy v. Union<br \/>\nof India :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Another aspect  of this  matter which needs to be<br \/>\n     mentioned is  that the  embargo on\t the  appearance  of<br \/>\n     legal practitioners  should not  be extended  so as  to<br \/>\n     prevent the  detenu from  being aided  or assisted by a<br \/>\n     friend who,  in truth  and substance,  is not  a  legal<br \/>\n     practitioner.  Every   person   whose   interests\t are<br \/>\n     adversely affected as a result of the proceedings which<br \/>\n     have a serious import, is entitled to be heard in those<br \/>\n     proceedings and  be assisted  by a\t friend.  A  detenu,<br \/>\n     taken straight  from his  cell to the Board&#8217;s room, may<br \/>\n     lack the  ease and\t composure to  present his  point of<br \/>\n     view. He  may be  &#8220;tongue-tied,  nervous,\tconfused  or<br \/>\n     wanting in\t intelligence&#8221; (see Pett v. Greyhound Racing<br \/>\n     Association Ltd., 1969, 1 QB 125), and if justice is to<br \/>\n     be done, he must at least have the help of a friend who<br \/>\n     can assist\t him to\t give coherence\t to  his  stray\t and<br \/>\n     wandering ideas.  Incarceration makes  a  man  and\t his<br \/>\n     thoughts dishevelled.  Just as  a person who is dumb is<br \/>\n     entitled, as he must, to be represented by a person who<br \/>\n     has speech,  even so, a person who finds himself unable<br \/>\n     to present his own case is entitled to take the aid and<br \/>\n     advice of a person who is better situated to appreciate<br \/>\n     the facts\tof the\tcase and the language of the law. It<br \/>\n     may be  that denial  of  legal  representation  is\t not<br \/>\n     denial of natural justice<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">774<\/span><br \/>\n     per se,  and, therefore,  if a  statute  excludes\tthat<br \/>\n     facility  expressly,  it  would  not  be  open  to\t the<br \/>\n     Tribunal to allow it. Fairness, as said by Lord Denning<br \/>\n     M.R., in Maynard v. Osmond [1977] 1 QB 240, 253, can be<br \/>\n     obtained without  legal representation.  But, it is not<br \/>\n     fair, and the statute does not exclude that right, that<br \/>\n     the detenu\t should not  even be allowed to take the aid<br \/>\n     of a  friend. Whenever  demanded, the  Advisory  Boards<br \/>\n     must grant that facility.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In the  present case,  the Advisory Board consisting of<br \/>\nthree Judges  of the  High Court of Tamil Nadu considered it<br \/>\nunnecessary and inadvisable to allow legal representation to<br \/>\nthe detenus.  It was  a\t matter\t for  the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board\tand I  do not  think I\twill be justified in<br \/>\nsubstituting my judgment in the place of their judgment. The<br \/>\ndetenus were  heard personally\tby the Advisory Board. After<br \/>\nseeing and  hearing them  personally also, the Board did not<br \/>\nfeel it\t necessary to  provide legal  representation to them<br \/>\nwhich they  would certainly  have done\tif they\t had thought<br \/>\nthat the  detenus appeared  to require\tsuch representation.<br \/>\nRegarding representation  by a\tfriend, there  was never any<br \/>\nsuch demand  by the  detenus.  A  &#8216;friendly&#8217;  representation<br \/>\nwould certainly\t have  been  provided  if  it  had  been  so<br \/>\ndemanded. It  was  not\tfor  the  Advisory  Board  to  offer<br \/>\n&#8216;friendly&#8217; representation  to the detenus even if the latter<br \/>\ndid not\t ask for it. Relying upon a sentence in the counter-<br \/>\nAffidavit of  Shri Thiru  Bhaskaran that  representation not<br \/>\nonly by\t a lawyer,  but by  a friend was also considered not<br \/>\nnecessary by  the Advisory  Board, it  was argued  that\t the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board\thad, without  warrant, refused even friendly<br \/>\nrepresentation. Shri  Thiru Bhaskaran  was speaking  for the<br \/>\nState of  Tamil Nadu  and not for the Advisory Board. I have<br \/>\nperused the  file of  the Advisory  Board which was produced<br \/>\nbefore\tme  and\t I  have  also\tperused\t the  communications<br \/>\naddressed by  the Advisory  Board to the Government of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu and to the detenus. I do not find the slightest hint of<br \/>\na  demand   for\t &#8216;friendly&#8217;  representation  or\t its  denial<br \/>\nanywhere. The  Advisory Board  was neither asked nor did the<br \/>\nBoard deny any &#8216;friendly&#8217; representation.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A charge was made against the Advisory Board that there<br \/>\nwas inequality\tof treatment.  It was  said that  while\t the<br \/>\ndetaining authority  was allowed  to be\t represented by\t its<br \/>\nofficers  and\tadvisers,  the\t detenus  were\t allowed  no<br \/>\nrepresentation. There is no substance<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">775<\/span><br \/>\nin this\t charge. From  the affidavit  of the Chairman of the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board,\t I find that all that happened was that some<br \/>\ncustoms officers  were allowed to be present in the corridor<br \/>\nso as  to enable them to produce the relevant files whenever<br \/>\nrequired for  perusal by the Board. The charge of inequality<br \/>\nof treatment is, therefore, baseless.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Yet another  submission of the learned Counsel was that<br \/>\nthe Advisory  Board failed  to consider the question whether<br \/>\nthe detention  continued to  be justified on the date of the<br \/>\nreport of  the Advisory\t Board, even  if it was justified on<br \/>\nthe date  of the making of the order of detention. The order<br \/>\nof detention was made on 7.1.82 and the consideration by the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board was on 8.2.82. The passage of time was not so<br \/>\nlong nor  had any  circumstances intervened  to justify\t any<br \/>\ncompartment-wise consideration\tof the justification for the<br \/>\ndetention on  the  date\t of  the  making  of  the  order  of<br \/>\ndetention and  on the  date of\tthe report  of the  Advisory<br \/>\nBoard. In  the circumstances  of the  case, I think that the<br \/>\nreport of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause<br \/>\nfor the\t detention of Richard Beale and Paul Duncan Zawadzki<br \/>\nnecessarily implied  that the  detention was  found  by\t the<br \/>\nBoard to  be justified\ton the date of its report as also on<br \/>\nthe date of the making of the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A complaint  was also  made  that\tthe  Advisory  Board<br \/>\ncarried on  its correspondence\twith the detenus through the<br \/>\nGovernment. This,  it was  stated, gave\t rise to a suspicion<br \/>\nthat everything\t was done  by the  Board at the behest or in<br \/>\nconsultation with  the Government.  This complaint is wholly<br \/>\nunjustified. As\t already mentioned by me, the Advisory Board<br \/>\nconsisted of  three Judges  of the  High Court of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nand as\texplained by  the Chairman  in\this  Affidavit,\t the<br \/>\ncorrespondence etc.  is carried\t on through  the  Government<br \/>\nbecause the  Board has\tno separate administrative office of<br \/>\nits own.  All the points urged on behalf of the detenus fail<br \/>\nand the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t\tPetitions dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">776<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1178, 1982 SCR (3) 769 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: PHILLIPPA ANNE DUKE Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/05\/1982 BENCH: REDDY, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2173,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\",\"name\":\"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982","datePublished":"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982"},"wordCount":2173,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982","name":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T15:44:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/phillippa-anne-duke-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-21-may-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Phillippa Anne Duke vs The State Of Tamil Nadu &amp; Ors on 21 May, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}