{"id":110800,"date":"2000-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000"},"modified":"2017-10-27T17:11:31","modified_gmt":"2017-10-27T11:41:31","slug":"sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","title":{"rendered":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, M.B. Shah<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  499 of 1992\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUKHDEV SINGH GILL\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/10\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO & M.B. SHAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2000 Supp(4) SCR 292<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 409 of 1992 :\n<\/p>\n
This is an appeal by Sukhdev Singh Gill who filed Writ Petition No. 6160 of
\n1987. In the writ petition the appellant unsuccessfully claimed the benefit
\nof military service towards fixation of his seniority in terms of the
\nPunjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Rules’).\n<\/p>\n
The appellant joined as Superintendent in General Reserve Engineering Force
\n(hereinafter referred to as G.R.E.F.) on 8.11.1996. He was confirmed in the
\nsaid post. He rendered the service in this post during the period of
\nexternal emergency. He, therefore, claimed that the Armed Force called by
\nthe name G.R.E.F. was an integral part of the Indian Army and that in terms
\nof the above Rules, he was entitled to count the military service rendered
\nby him for the purpose of seniority in the Municipal Administration of the
\nState which was a provincialised service. As the question of seniority was
\ninvolved, he impleaded Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 in the writ petition who
\nwould be affected if he was given the benefit of military service.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition but on appeal the Division
\nBench of the High Court set aside the said judgment in Letters Patent
\nAppeal No. 1372 of 1988 and dismissed the writ petition. It is against this
\njudgment that this appeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant joined service as a Superintendent in the G.R.E.F. on
\n8.11.1966 and was discharged sometime before 24.11.1972. He joined the
\nPunjab Agriculture University as a Section Officer and on 7.9.1973, in the
\nMunicipal Committee, Ludhiana. In the year 1976 the services of the
\nemployees of the Municipal Committee were provincialised and the appellant
\nwas posted in the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. The writ petition
\nrelating to seniority was filed in the year 1986 but pending the writ
\npetition, the representation of the appellant was rejected on 3.3.1987.
\nThereafter, the writ petition was amended challenging the said order dated
\n3.3.1987.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant notification issued under the Punjab Government National
\nEmergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, is dated 20.7.1965 being G.S.R. 160\/
\nConst.\/Art. 309\/65. Relevant part of material for the purpose of this case
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“No. G.S.R. 160\/Const.\/Art. 309\/65. In exercise of the powers conferred by
\nthe proviso enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased
\nto make the following rules :-\n<\/p>\n
1. Short title, commencement and application (1) These rules may be called
\nthe Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  They shall come into force at once.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  They shall apply to all classes of services and posts in connection
\nwith the affairs of the State of Punjab except Medical and Health services.\n<\/p>\n
2. Definition-For the purposes of these rules, the expression ‘military
\nservice’ means enrolled or commissioned service in any of the three wings
\nof the Indian Armed Forces (including service as a warrant officer)
\nrendered by a person during the period of Operation of the Proclamation of
\nEmergency made by the President under Article 352 of the Constitution on
\nthe 26th October, 1962 or such other service as may hereafter be declared
\nas military service for the purposes of these rules. Any period of military
\ntraining followed by military service shall also be reckoned as military
\nservice.”\n<\/p>\n
It is the case of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri
\nRajinder Sachar that the military service defined in Rule 2 in the above
\nnotification includes the service rendered by the appellant in the G.R.E.F.
\nand that the said service should be added to his service in the Municipal
\nDepartment of the State of Punjab and if that is done, he would be senior
\nto the private respondents. This plea is opposed by Shri Adarsh Goel,
\nlearned “senior counsel for the private respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the limited question before us is whether the appellant could be
\nsaid to have been “enrolled or commissioned” in any of the “three wings” of
\nthe Indian Armed Forces (including service as a warrant officer) as
\nrequired by Rule 2 (first part) or whether the appellant was a member of
\nany other service as might have been declared as military service for the
\npurposes of the said Rules, as required by Rule 2 (second part).\n<\/p>\n
So far as the second part of Rule 2 which refers to “such other service as
\nmay be declared” as ‘military service’, it is not in dispute that there is
\nno separate notification issued by the Punjab Government, notifying the
\nservice in the G.R.E.F. for the purposes of Rule 2 of the said Rules.\n<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, the question is confined to the first part of
\nRule 2, namely; whether the appellant could be said to have been “enrolled”
\nor “commissioned” in any of the “three services” of the Indian Armed
\nForces.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this
\nCourt in R. Viswan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> reported in [1983] 3
\nSCC 401, where this Court considered the nature of the service in the
\nG.R.E.F. and the applicability of certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950
\nfor the purpose of taking disciplinary action against the Officers of the
\nG.R.E.F. In that judgment this Court exhaustively dealt with the provisions
\nof Article 33 of the Constitution of India and the relevant notification
\nissued by the Government of India under Sections 4(1) and 4(4) of the Army
\nAct, 1950 under SRO 329 dated 23.9.1960. The said notification issued under
\nthe Army Act, reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“SRO 329 dated 23rd September 1960.\n<\/p>\n
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (4) of section 4
\nof the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Central Government hereby :-\n<\/p>\n
(a) applies to the General Reserve Engineer Force, being a force raised and
\nmaintained in India under the authority of the Central Government, all the
\nprovisions of the said Act with the exception of those shown in Schedule
\n‘A’ subject to the modifications set forth in Schedule ‘B’, and<\/p>\n
(b)  directs that the officers mentioned in the first column of Schedule
\n‘C’ shall exercise or perform in respect of members of the said force under
\ntheir command the jurisdiction, powers and duties incidental to the
\noperations of the said Act, specified in the second column thereof.” So far
\nas Schedule ‘A’ of the SRO is concerned, it excepts certain provisions of
\nthe Army Act and states that they do not apply to the members of G.R.E.F.
\nwhereas Schedule ‘B’ of the Notification relates to certain amendments in
\nSections 3, 63, 73, 81(4), 113, 114 and 116(1) of the said Act. In the
\nabove judgment, this Court noticed the definition of the word, ‘the Forces’
\nin Section 3(xi) of the Army Act which reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“(xi) “the Forces” means the regular Army, Navy and Air Force or any part
\nof any one or more of them;”\n<\/p>\n
This Court also referred to Section 4(1) & (4) of the Army Act, 1950 which
\nread as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“4(1) The Central Government may, by notification, apply, with or without
\nmodifications, all or any of the provisions of this Act to any force raised
\nand maintained in India under the authority of that Government, including
\nany force maintained by a Part B State, and suspend the operation of any
\nother enactment for the time being applicable to the said force.\n<\/p>\n
(4) While any of the provisions of this Act apply to the said force, the
\nCentral Government may, by notification, direct by what authority any
\njurisdiction, powers or duties incident to the operation of these
\nprovisions shall be exercised or performed in respect of the said force.”\n<\/p>\n
It was held in that case that G.R.E.F. came within sub-section (1) of
\nSection 4 inasmuch as it was a “Force” raised and maintained in India under
\nthe authority of the Central Government. It was further held that the
\nentire infrastructure of GREF was modelled on the pattern of the Army and
\nit was organised into units and sub-units with command and control system
\nsimilar to that in the Army. The personnel of GREF right from Class IV to
\nClass I had to be in uniform with distinctive badges of rank and they had a
\nrank structure equivalent to that of the Army. GREF was primarily intended
\nto carry out defence and other works projected by the General Staff of the
\nArmy Headquarters and it was only when spare capacity was available that
\nGREF could undertake works of other ministries or departments or agency
\nbasis and there also, preference would be given to strategic and other
\nroads in sensitive areas. This Court referred to the definition of the
\nArmed Forces in Section 3(xi) (at page 420) and observed that the word,
\n‘Force’ was not defined anywhere under the Army Act, ‘1950 but there was
\ndefinition of the words, ‘the Forces’ in Section 3(xi), but it would not
\nhelp because the expression to be construed was the word “Force” which was
\ndifferent from the word, ‘the Forces’. After having so observed, this Court
\nreferred to the question whether the members of GREF could be considered to
\nbe the members of the “Armed Forces” within the meaning of Article 33 of
\nthe Constitution of India. This became necessary in that case because the
\nquestion was whether the fundamental rights of the GREF Officers stood
\nrestricted as in the case of the three principal Forces. If Article 33
\napplied, the State would be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution
\nof India and it could take disciplinary action within the limits permitted
\nby a restrictive law. After going through various provisions, this Court
\nheld that GREF was an integral part of the Armed Forces and the members of
\nthe GREF were the members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article
\n33 of the Constitution of India and the disciplinary action taken in that
\ncase was not ultra vires.                     ‘<\/p>\n
In fact, there is a notification dated 14.8.1985 which forms part of the
\npaper book before us issued by the Government of India being No. F. 81(1)\/
\n64-Estt. 70463\/DGER which states that in view of the judgment in R. Viswan
\n& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., the President of India<\/a> is pleased to
\ndeclare General Reserve Engineer Force to be an integral part of the Armed
\nForces of India.\n<\/p>\n
Relying on the above said judgment and the order issued by the Government
\nof India dated 14.8.1985 and Section 4(1) of the Army Act, 1950, learned
\nsenior counsel for the appellant contended that GREF was a Force falling
\nwithin the connotation of Armed Forces under Article 33 of the Constitution
\nof India and that is why Section 4( 1) of the Army Act was made applicable
\nto the GREF and if that was the position of law, the appellant was entitled
\nto claim that his past service fell within the definition of “military
\nservice” under Rule 2 of the Punjab Government National Emergency
\n(Concession) Rules, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
There cannot be any difficulty, in view of the judgment of this Court in
\nthe above case and the subsequent notification dated 14.8.1985 issued by
\nthe Government of India, that the appellant’s service in GREF could be
\ntreated as service in the “Armed Forces” for purposes of Article 33 of the
\nConstitution of India. But the question is whether that is sufficient for
\nthe purpose of attracting Rule 2 of the above said 1965 Punjab Rules dated
\n21.7.1965?\n<\/p>\n
We have already extracted the above rule and it would be noticed that the
\nmilitary service which would be counted as service must be service as an
\n“enrolled” or “commissioned” officer in the “three wings” of the India
\nArmed Forces (including the service as Warrant Officer) That is what Rule 2
\nof the Punjab Rules of 1965 requires.\n<\/p>\n
It appears to us that the words, ‘three wings’ used in Rule 2 of the above
\nsaid Rules has to be understood in the light of Section 3(xi) of the Army
\nAct, 1950 which defines, the word, ‘the Forces’ as the regular Forces,
\nnamely, the Army, Navy and Air Force or any part of any one or more of
\nthem. The Punjab Rules permitting computation of ‘military services’
\ntherefore, appear to us to restrict the benefit of military service only to
\nthose Officers who are enrolled or commissioned in the three principal
\nwings of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and Air Force and it was not
\nintended to extend to any other Armed Force to which the provisions of the
\nIndian Army Act are extended under section 4(1) of the Army Act, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, even though the appellant can be said to belong to the “Armed Forces”
\nfor purposes of the Army Act and Article 33 of the Constitution of India,
\nand even assuming that he was enrolled or commissioned in the GREF, still
\nhis service could not be treated as service rendered in the “three
\nprincipal wings” of the Armed Forces, namely, Army, Navy and Air Force. We
\nare, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court is correct and the appellant is not entitled to count his
\nservice in the GREF for the purpose of seniority in the provincialised
\nservice under the State of Punjab. The Punjab Rules of 1965 are thus not
\napplicable to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the appellant, however, invited our attention to
\na statement made in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Om Prakash Tandon,
\nPGS (I), Under Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local
\nGovernment on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the writ petition.
\n(Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition is the State of Punjab and
\nrespondent No. 2 is the Director, Local Self Government Department, Punjab,
\nChandigarh.) At page 75 of the paper book, we find in the said counter
\naffidavit filed by the said Officer it was stated that the appellant was
\nentitled for the benefit of previous military service for the purpose of
\n“pay and leave” but he was not entitled for the benefit of said service for
\n“seniority”. We take note of the fact that such a statement is made in the
\ncounter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but
\nin the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL No. 500 of 1992<\/p>\n
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 499 of 1992, this appeal
\nalso fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case
\nwith no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 Author: M J Rao Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, M.B. Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 499 of 1992 PETITIONER: SUKHDEV SINGH GILL RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/10\/2000 BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & M.B. SHAH […]<\/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-110800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - 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\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-27T11:41:31+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T11:41:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2402,\"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\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\",\"name\":\"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T11:41:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - 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\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-27T11:41:31+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T11:41:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000"},"wordCount":2402,"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\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000","name":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T11:41:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhdev-singh-gill-vs-state-of-punjab-and-ors-on-19-october-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhdev Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 October, 2000"}]},{"@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\/110800","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=110800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}