{"id":110035,"date":"1996-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996"},"modified":"2016-11-06T05:31:42","modified_gmt":"2016-11-06T00:01:42","slug":"s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: B Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.VINOD KUMAR AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nB.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.
\n     In\t Indra\tSawhney\t etc.  v.  Union  &  Ors.etc.  [1992
\nSuppl.(3) S.C.C.215],  this Court  had, while declaring that
\nArticle 16(4)  does not contemplate or permit reservation in
\nthe matter  of promotions,  declared that  for\tthe  several
\nreasons stated\ttherein, the reservations already made shall
\ncontinue for  a period\tof five\t years from  the date of the
\nsaid judgment.\t In  Para 829  [at Page 747] of the majority
\njudgment,  it  was  directed  that  “our  decision  on\tthis
\nquestion shall\toperate only  prospectively  and  shall\t not
\naffect\tpromotions   already  made,  whether  on  temporary,
\nofficiating  or\t  regular\/permanent  basis.  It\t is  further
\ndirected that  wherever reservations are already provided in
\nthe matter  of promotion-be  it Central\t Services  or  State
\nServices, or for that matter services under any corporation,
\nauthority or body falling under the definition of ‘State’ in
\nArticle 12-such reservations shall continue in operation for
\na period  of five  years from  this day”.  Then, in the next
\npara, Para  831, the  majority judgment\t made the  following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
     “We must also make it clear that it
\n     would not\tbe impermissible for the
\n     State  to\textend\tconcessions  and
\n     relaxations to  members of reserved
\n     categories\t  in   the   matter   of
\n     promotion without\tcompromising the
\n     efficiency of  the\t administration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The relaxation  concerned in  State
\n     of Kerala\tv. N.M.Thomas<\/a>  (1976)  2
\n     SCC 310, and the concessions namely
\n     carrying forward  of vacancies  and
\n     provisions\t     for      in-service
\n     coaching\/training\t   in\t   Akhil
\n     Bharatiya Soshit  Karamchari  Sangh
\n     v. Union  of India,<\/a>  (1981)  1  SCC
\n     246,   are\t   instances   of   such
\n     concessions    and\t    relaxations.
\n     However,\tit    would    not    be
\n     permissible  to   prescribe   lower
\n     qualifying marks  or a lesser level
\n     of evaluation  for the  members  of
\n     reserved  categories   since   that
\n     would compromise  the efficiency of
\n     administration. We\t reiterate  that
\n     while  it\tmay  be\t permissible  to
\n     prescribe\t a   reasonably\t  lesser
\n     qualifying marks  or evaluation for
\n     the OBCs,\tSCs and STs – consistent
\n     with     the      efficiency     of
\n     administration and\t the  nature  of
\n     duties  attaching\t to  the  office
\n     concerned – in the matter of direct
\n     recruitment, such\ta  course  would
\n     not be permissible in the matter of
\n     promotions for the reasons recorded
\n     hereinabove.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sawant, J.\t expressed himself  on this  aspect in\tPara
\n549, which reads:\n<\/p>\n
     “There is no doubt that the meaning
\n     of the  various expressions used in
\n     Article 16, viz., ‘matters relating
\n     to employment or appointment to any
\n     office’,  and     ‘appointments  or
\n     posts’ cannot  be whittled\t down to
\n     mean only\tinitial recruitment  and
\n     hence  the\t  normal  rule\t of  the
\n     service jurisprudence  of the  loss
\n     of\t the   birth  marks   cannot  be
\n     applied to\t the  appointments  made
\n     under  the\t  article.  However,  as
\n     pointed out  earlier, the exclusive
\n     quota  is\tnot  the  only\tform  of
\n     reservation and where the resort to
\n     it\t such\tas  in\tthe  promotions,
\n     results in\t the inefficiency of the
\n     administration, it\t is illegal. But
\n     that is not the end of the road nor
\n     is\t a   backward\tclass\temployee
\n     helpless on account of its absence.
\n     Once he  gets an  equal opportunity
\n     to show  his talent  by coming into
\n     the mainstream, all he needs is the
\n     facility to  achieve equal results.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The facility  can be  and\tmust  be
\n     given  to\t him  in   the\tform  of
\n     concessions, exemptions  etc.  such
\n     as\t  relaxation   of   age,   extra
\n     attempts\t for\t passing     the
\n     examinations, extra training period
\n     etc. along\t with the  machinery for
\n     impartial\tassessment   as\t  stated
\n     above. Such  facilities when  given
\n     are also  a part of the reservation
\n     programme and  do not  fall foul of
\n     the requirement  of the  efficiency
\n     of\t  the\t administration.    Such
\n     facilities, however, are imperative
\n     if,  not\tonly  the   equality  of
\n     opportunity but  also the\tequality
\n     of results\t is to be achieved which
\n     is the true meaning of the right to
\n     equality.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The question  before the  Madras  State  Administrative
\nTribunal was  whether the saving of reservations provided in
\nPara 829  takes within\tits purview the provisions providing
\nfor lesser  qualifying marks  in the  qualifying examination
\nfor promotion.\tThe  Tribunal  held  that  inasmuch  as\t the
\nexpression “reservation”  provided in  Article\t16(4)  takes
\nwithin\tits   fold  concessions\t  and  facilities  including
\nprovision for  lesser qualifying  marks\t in  the  qualifying
\nexamination for promotion, such a provision is also saved by
\nvirtue\tof  the\t declaration  contained\t in  Para  829.\t The
\ndeclaration made by the Tribunal reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “14. We  therefore\t hold  that  the
\n     status  quo   in  the   matter   of
\n     reservations in  promotion required
\n     to be  maintained\tby  the\t Supreme
\n     Court for\tfive years,  would  also
\n     include status quo being maintained
\n     in the matter of prescribing lesser
\n     qualifying marks  in the qualifying
\n     examination for  promotion,  within
\n     which period  the authorities could
\n     take the  steps  indicated\t in  the
\n     judgment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15.  In  view  of\twhat  is  stated
\n     above, we\thold that  the\timpugned
\n     Memorandum cannot\tbe assailed  and
\n     are legally sustainable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The memorandum  referred to in Para 15 aforesaid is the
\nMemorandum dated  January 21, 1977 which provided that where
\nthe promotions are made on the basis of seniority subject to
\nfitness and  where  a  qualifying  examination\tis  held  to
\ndetermine the fitness of the candidates for such promotions,
\nsuitable relaxation  in\t the  qualifying  standard  in\tsuch
\nexamination should  be made  for Scheduled  Castes\/Scheduled
\nTribes to the extent of the relaxation to be decided on each
\noccasion, whenever  such examination  was held,\t taking into
\naccount\t all   relevant\t factors  including  the  number  of
\nvacancies reserved, performance of Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled
\nTribe candidates  as well  as the general candidates in that
\nexamination, the minimum standard of fitness for appointment
\nto the\tpost and  the overall strength of the cadre and that
\nof  the\t  Scheduled  Caste\/Scheduled  Tribe  in\t that  cadre
\n[Purport of  the Office\t Memorandum taken from Para-2 of the
\nTribunal’s  judgment].\t Pursuant   to\t the   said   Office
\nMemorandum, the\t Government of\tTamil Nadu  has been issuing
\norders from  time to  time providing lesser qualifying marks
\nfor  passing   the  qualifying\texamination  prescribed\t for
\npromotion, in the case of Scheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribe.\n<\/p>\n
     The precise  question raised  before the  Tribunal\t was
\nwhether the  said provision  is\t saved\tby  the\t declaration
\ncontained in Para 829 of this Court’s judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered
\nthe various opinions in Indra Sawhney, we are of the opinion
\nthat the  very posing  of the question as well as the answer
\ngiven by the Tribunal are erroneous and unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  Para 831, extracted hereinabove, while it
\nis “permissible\t to prescribe a reasonably lesser qualifying
\nmarks or  evaluation for  the OBCs, SCs and STs – consistent
\nwith the  efficiency of\t administration and  the  nature  of
\nduties attaching  to the office concerned – in the matter of
\ndirect requirement,  such a  course would not be permissible
\nin  the\t  matter  of  promotion\t for  the  reasons  recorded
\nhereinabove”. At  the same  time, it  is held that “it would
\nnot be impermissible for the State to extend concessions and
\nrelaxations  to\t  members  of  reserved\t categories  of\t the
\nadministration. The  relaxation concerned  in Thomas and the
\nconcessions  namely   carrying\tforward\t  of  vacancies\t and
\nprovisions for\tin-service coaching\/training  in  Karamchari
\nSangh are  instances of\t such concessions  and\trelaxations.
\nHowever, it  would not\tbe permissible\tto  prescribe  lower
\nqualifying marks  or a\tlesser level  of evaluation  for the
\nmembers of  reserved categories\t since that would compromise
\nthe efficiency\tof administration.” The relaxation concerned
\nin State  of Kerala  v N.M.  Thomas [1976  (2) S.C.C.310] is
\nalso set  out in  Para 713  of the  majority  judgment.\t The
\nconcession was\tproviding “temporary  exemption\t to  members
\nalready in  service belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes
\nor Scheduled Tribes from passing all tests (unified, special
\nor departmental\t test) for  a period  of two years….. They
\nwere required  to  pass\t the  tests  within  the  period  of
\nexemption.” So\tfar as\tthe concessions\t in Akhil  Bharatiya
\nSoshit\tKaramchari   Sangh  v.\tUnion  of  India<\/a>  [1981\t (1)
\nS.C.C.246] are\tconcerned, they\t are specified\tin Para\t 831
\nitself\tas  referring  to  carrying  forward  vacancies\t and
\nprovisions for\tin-service  coaching\/training.\tIt  is\tthus
\nclear from  a reading  of Para 831 that so far as promotions
\nare concerned,\tit is  not  permissible\t to  provide  lesser
\nqualifying marks  of evaluation\t in favour  of\tOBCs\/SCs\/STs
\nsince\tthat\twould\tcompromise    the   efficiency\t  of
\nadministration, while the same can be provided in the matter
\nof direct  recruitment. So  far as  promotions are concerned
\nthe only  provision permitted  other than  the provision for
\nreservation is\tproviding the  concessions and\treservations
\nlike the ones provided in Thomas and Karamchari Sangh, which
\ndo not\ttake in\t provision for\tlower qualifying  marks or a
\nlesser level of evaluation.\n<\/p>\n
     To the same effect are the observations of Sawant,J. in
\nPara 549,  which we  have extracted hereinabove. The learned
\nJudge also  speaks of  “concessions\/exemptions etc.  such as
\nrelaxation  of\t age,  extra   attempts\t for   passing\t the
\nexamination, extra  training period  etc.” The other learned
\nJudges in  their separate  opinions have  merely  held\tthat
\nreservation in\tthe matter  of promotions is not permissible
\nunder Article 16(4). They have not separately dealt with the
\nconcessions and\t facilities which  can be  extended to these
\nreserved categories.  [Of course,  one of the learned Judges
\nwho constituted\t the majority,\tAhmadi,J.  (as\tthe  learned
\nChief Justice  then was)  was of the opinion that it was not
\nnecessary to  consider in  that case  the  question  whether
\nArticle\t 16(4)\t permits  reservation\tin  the\t  matter  of
\npromotions.] In\t the light  of the  fact  that\tPandian\t and
\nSawant,JJ. have\t agreed with  the conclusions  arrived at in
\nthe majority  judgment and  in the  absence of\tany contrary
\nproposition in\tthe opinion  of any  other learned Judge, it
\nmust be\t held that  the law  on this  question\tis  the\t one
\ndeclared in Para 831. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
\nso far as the provision for lower qualifying marks or lesser
\nlevel of evaluation in the matter of promotion is concerned,
\nit is  not permissible\tunder Article  16(4) in\t view of the
\ncommand contained  in Article  335 of  the Constitution.  In
\nother words,  even if it is assumed for the sake of argument
\nthat reservation is permitted by Article 16(4) in the matter
\nof promotions,\ta provision  for lower\tqualifying marks  or
\nlesser level  of evaluation is not permissible in the matter
\nof promotions, by virtue of Article 335. If so, there can be
\nno question  of such  a provision  or “concession”, as it is
\ncalled by  the Tribunal,  being saved  by the declaration in
\nPara 829 of the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel for the parties referred to certain
\ndecisions of  this Court  but, in  our opinion, it is wholly
\nunnecessary to\trefer to  them since  none of them deal with
\nthe question at issue.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal is accordingly allowed with the above
\nclarifications. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. No
\ncosts<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 Author: B Reddy Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K.S. Paripoornan PETITIONER: S.VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/1996 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D […]<\/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-110035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-06T00:01:42+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T00:01:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1796,\"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\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\",\"name\":\"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T00:01:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-06T00:01:42+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T00:01:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996"},"wordCount":1796,"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\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996","name":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T00:01:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-vinod-kumar-and-anr-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-1-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Vinod Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 October, 1996"}]},{"@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\/110035","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=110035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110035\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}