{"id":111937,"date":"2007-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007"},"modified":"2014-01-23T18:48:03","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T13:18:03","slug":"sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED : 29.10.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n                             AND\n            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\n                              \n                    H.C.P. No.913 of 2007\n                              \n\n\n\nSathiya @ Sathiyanathan  \t\t\t\t..Petitioner\n\n\n           Vs\n\n                              \n1. The State of Tamil Nadu \n   rep. by its Secretary  to Government\n   Home, Prohibition and Excise Department\n   Fort St.George\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The District Magistrate and District Collector\n   Vellore District at\n   Vellore. \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n     Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n\n\n\n          For Petitioner  :   Mr.T.R.Radhakrishnan\n\n          For Respondents :   Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                 (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n<p>      The  petitioner, aggrieved by the order  of  detention<\/p>\n<p>dated  22.5.2007 made in Ref.No.C3.D.O.No.41\/2007 passed  by<\/p>\n<p>the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu<\/p>\n<p>Prevention  of  Dangerous Activities  of  Bootleggers,  Drug<\/p>\n<p>Offenders,   Forest  Offenders,  Goondas,  Immoral   Traffic<\/p>\n<p>Offenders, Sand Offenders,  Slum Grabbers and Video  Pirates<\/p>\n<p>Act,  1982  (Tamil  Nadu  Act 14 of  1982)  to  detain  him,<\/p>\n<p>branding  him  as  a  Goonda, seeks to quash  the  order  of<\/p>\n<p>detention and to direct the respondents to produce him,  who<\/p>\n<p>is now confined at Central Prison, Vellore before this Court<\/p>\n<p>and set him at liberty.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.  On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sivakumar<\/p>\n<p>that  on  11.4.2007 at about 7.30 hours, the detenu  waylaid<\/p>\n<p>him  at  the  point of pen knife and forcibly took  Rs.150\/-<\/p>\n<p>from  his shirt pocket and Wester wrist watch from his  left<\/p>\n<p>hand, and also threatened the public who came for his rescue<\/p>\n<p>that  they would be killed and hurled the bottles taken from<\/p>\n<p>the  nearby bunk shop in the road, which scattered all  over<\/p>\n<p>the  roadside,  making  them to run  on  all  sides  seeking<\/p>\n<p>shelter,  which resulted in traffic dislocation, the  detenu<\/p>\n<p>was  arrested and a case was registered in Crime No.221\/2007<\/p>\n<p>on  the  file of Arcot Town Police Station, for the  offence<\/p>\n<p>punishable  under Sections 341, 392, 397, 427  and  506(ii),<\/p>\n<p>IPC.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case<\/p>\n<p>as  a  ground  case  and twelve adverse  case,  ordered  his<\/p>\n<p>detention dubbing him as a goonda.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.  The  learned counsel for the petitioner challenges<\/p>\n<p>the  impugned order of detention only on the ground of delay<\/p>\n<p>in preparing the rejection order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.1.  Before  delving into the issue relating  to  the<\/p>\n<p>delay  as contended above, it would be apt to refer the  law<\/p>\n<p>on the point.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.2.  Article  22(5)  of  the  Constitution  of  India<\/p>\n<p>suggests  that the obligation of the Government is to  offer<\/p>\n<p>the detenu an opportunity of making a representation against<\/p>\n<p>the order, before it is confirmed according to the procedure<\/p>\n<p>laid  down  under the relevant provisions of law, vide  K.M.<\/p>\n<p>Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .<\/p>\n<p>     5.3. The right to representation under Article 22(5) of<\/p>\n<p>the  Constitution  of  India includes right  to  expeditious<\/p>\n<p>disposal by the State Government. Expedition is the rule and<\/p>\n<p>delay  defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the  Constitution<\/p>\n<p>of  India,  vide <a href=\"\/doc\/501500\/\">Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi,<\/a> 1992  Supp<\/p>\n<p>(3) SCC 65.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.4. Any inordinate and unexplained delay on the  part<\/p>\n<p>of  the Government in considering the representation renders<\/p>\n<p>the   detention  illegal,  vide  <a href=\"\/doc\/702046\/\">Tara  Chand  v.  State   of<\/p>\n<p>Rajasthan,<\/a> (1980) 2 SCC 321 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1639962\/\">Raghavendra Singh v. Supdt.,<\/p>\n<p>Distt. Jail,<\/a> (1986) 1 SCC 650.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       5.5.  It  is  a  constitutional  obligation  of   the<\/p>\n<p>Government to consider the representation forwarded  by  the<\/p>\n<p>detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed  by<\/p>\n<p>Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be  taken<\/p>\n<p>on  the  representation, the words &#8220;as soon as  may  be&#8221;  in<\/p>\n<p>clause  (5)  of  Article  22 convey  the  message  that  the<\/p>\n<p>representation should be considered and disposed of  at  the<\/p>\n<p>earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is  pre-<\/p>\n<p>empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned<\/p>\n<p>in  the  disposal  of  the  representation.  The  court  can<\/p>\n<p>certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned  due  to<\/p>\n<p>permissible  reasons  or unavoidable causes.  If  delay  was<\/p>\n<p>caused   on  account  of  any  indifference  or   lapse   in<\/p>\n<p>considering  the representation, such delay  will  adversely<\/p>\n<p>affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it<\/p>\n<p>is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any,<\/p>\n<p>in  disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say<\/p>\n<p>that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well<\/p>\n<p>be  explained. So the test is not the duration or  range  of<\/p>\n<p>delay,  but  how it is explained by the authority concerned.<\/p>\n<p>Even  the  reason that the Minister was on  tour  and  hence<\/p>\n<p>there  was  a  delay  of  five  days  in  disposing  of  the<\/p>\n<p>representation was rejected by the Apex Court  holding  that<\/p>\n<p>when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of<\/p>\n<p>the  Constitution of India is involved, the absence  of  the<\/p>\n<p>Minister  at head quarters is not sufficient to justify  the<\/p>\n<p>delay,  since  the file could be reached the  Minister  with<\/p>\n<p>utmost  promptitude in cases involving the vitally important<\/p>\n<p>fundamental  right of a citizen, vide <a href=\"\/doc\/1287991\/\">Rajammal v.  State  of<\/p>\n<p>T.N.,<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 417.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.  In the instant case, admittedly, objecting to  the<\/p>\n<p>order  of  detention  dated 22.5.2007, a representation  was<\/p>\n<p>made  on behalf of the detenu to the detaining authority  on<\/p>\n<p>22.6.2007,   which  was  received  by  the   Government   on<\/p>\n<p>26.6.2007.  Parawar remarks from the sponsoring authority on<\/p>\n<p>27.6.2007  and  on  receipt of the  same  on  4.7.2007,  the<\/p>\n<p>detaining  authority sent it to the Government on  11.7.2007<\/p>\n<p>and   the   same  was  received  on  the  same  day  itself.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, the file was submitted on 12.7.2007 and the same<\/p>\n<p>was   considered  by  the  Under  Secretary  and  Additional<\/p>\n<p>Secretary  on  13.7.2007.  The file was  considered  by  the<\/p>\n<p>Minister  on 16.7.2007.  However, the rejection  letter  was<\/p>\n<p>prepared on 25.7.2007, after a delay of nine days, which  is<\/p>\n<p>not properly explained.  Even taking note of the intervening<\/p>\n<p>holidays,    viz.,  21.7.2007 and 22.7.2007 (being  Saturday<\/p>\n<p>and  Sunday), the delay of seven days in preparing the order<\/p>\n<p>of  rejection,  is  admittedly unexplained and  inexcusable.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, the order of rejection was sent on 25.7.2007 and<\/p>\n<p>served on the detenu on 28.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     7. At this juncture, a reference to the decision of the<\/p>\n<p>Apex   Court  in  Kundanbhai  Dulabhai  Sheikh  v   District<\/p>\n<p>Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (1996) 3 SCC 194 is apposite:<\/p>\n<p>   &#8220;In  spite  of  law  laid down above  by  this  Court<br \/>\n   repeatedly   over   the  past  three   decades,   the<br \/>\n   Executive,  namely,  the  State  Government  and  its<br \/>\n   officers  continue to behave in their old,  lethargic<br \/>\n   fashion  and  like  all other files  rusting  in  the<br \/>\n   Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism,<br \/>\n   the  representation made by a person deprived of  his<br \/>\n   liberty,  continue  to  be dealt  with  in  the  same<br \/>\n   fashion.  The  Government and its officers  will  not<br \/>\n   give  up  their  habit  of maintaining  a  consistent<br \/>\n   attitude  of lethargy. So also, this Court  will  not<br \/>\n   hesitate  in  quashing  the  order  of  detention  to<br \/>\n   restore the `liberty and freedom&#8217; to the person whose<br \/>\n   detention  is allowed to become bad by the Government<br \/>\n   itself  on  account of his representation  not  being<br \/>\n   disposed of at the earliest.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.  That apart, it is a settled law that there  should<\/p>\n<p>not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in<\/p>\n<p>considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the<\/p>\n<p>disposal  of  representation  would  be  a  breach  of   the<\/p>\n<p>constitutional imperative and it would render the  continued<\/p>\n<p>detention impermissible and illegal, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi<\/p>\n<p>v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     9. In the instant case, there is delay of seven days in<\/p>\n<p>preparing the order of rejection on the detenu, as  referred<\/p>\n<p>to  above, and the same, in our considered opinion, vitiates<\/p>\n<p>the   impugned  order  of  detention.   We  are,  therefore,<\/p>\n<p>inclined to allow this petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  the result, the impugned order of detention is set<\/p>\n<p>aside.   The  detenu  is  directed  to  be  set  at  liberty<\/p>\n<p>forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with<\/p>\n<p>any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>kpl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n   Prohibition &amp; Excise Department<br \/>\n   Secretariat<br \/>\n   Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Magistrate and District Collector<br \/>\n   Vellore District @ Vellore.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Superintendent of Central Prison<br \/>\n   Vellore.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n   High Court<br \/>\n   Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.10.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P. No.913 of 2007 Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan ..Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - 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\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T13:18:03+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T13:18:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1202,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T13:18:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - 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\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T13:18:03+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T13:18:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007"},"wordCount":1202,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007","name":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T13:18:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sathiya-sathiyanathan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sathiya @ Sathiyanathan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/111937","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=111937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111937\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}