{"id":112633,"date":"2003-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003"},"modified":"2015-11-07T11:17:52","modified_gmt":"2015-11-07T05:47:52","slug":"smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2313 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSmt. Kanta Devi\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India and Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4117 of 2002)<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAnsuya Parshad, husband of the appellant (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8216;deceased employee&#8217;) was charged with mis-<br \/>\nconduct and on the basis of a departmental enquiry held<br \/>\nunder the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (in short<br \/>\n&#8216;the Rules&#8217;) framed under Central Reserve Police Force Act,<br \/>\n1955 (in short &#8216;the Act&#8217;) was dismissed from service, in<br \/>\nterms of an order dated 26.6.1980 passed by the Deputy<br \/>\nInspector General of Police (in short &#8216;the DIG&#8217;). Said order<br \/>\nof dismissal was challenged in a statutory appeal under Rule<br \/>\n28 of the Rules which was dismissed. Matter was taken by a<br \/>\nwrit petition to the Delhi High Court, and a learned Single<br \/>\nJudge quashed the order of removal and directed re-<br \/>\ninstatement with consequential benefits. The sole ground on<br \/>\nwhich interference was made by learned Single Judge was that<br \/>\nthe scheme of the Rules is such that either in the case of<br \/>\nappointment or promotion, prior approval of the Inspector<br \/>\nGeneral of Police (in short &#8216;the IG&#8217;) is imperative. As a<br \/>\nnatural corollary any termination without approval of the<br \/>\nIG, as in the present case, would be bad in law. It was,<br \/>\ntherefore, held that the order of dismissal passed by the<br \/>\nDIG was non est. It was further observed that DIG could not<br \/>\nhave removed the respondent without prior approval of the<br \/>\nIG. Matter was taken in appeal by the Union of India by a<br \/>\nLetters Patent Appeal before the same Court. By the impugned<br \/>\norder, the order of dismissal has been restored; on the<br \/>\nground that the construction put by learned Single Judge is<br \/>\nunsound. Reference was made to Rules 7(b) and 27 to conclude<br \/>\nthat the IG is not the appointing authority; Commandant was<br \/>\nthe appointing authority; DIG being an officer superior to<br \/>\nCommandant had authority to pass the order of dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid background it is unnecessary<br \/>\nto deal into the factual aspects in detail, except noting<br \/>\nthat the deceased employee was appointed as a Naik in<br \/>\nCentral Reserve Police Force (in short &#8216;the CRPF&#8217;) on<br \/>\n28.9.1959. He was promoted as a Subedar(Inspector) on<br \/>\n30.1.1975, which was made by the Commandant with prior<br \/>\napproval of the IG as required under Rule 7(b) of the Rules.<br \/>\nSince the employee had died on 10.7.1999 during the pendency<br \/>\nof the appeal before the High Court, the present appellant<br \/>\nwas substituted in his place.\n<\/p>\n<p>In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant submitted that the Division Bench was not correct<br \/>\nin its interpretation of Rule 27 of the Rules which<br \/>\nprescribes the procedure for award of punishment. For the<br \/>\npurpose of appointment or promotion, approval of the IG is<br \/>\nnecessary. Therefore, requirement of approval; in case of<br \/>\ndismissal also is a natural corollary. It was further<br \/>\nsubmitted that in view of unblemished service records of the<br \/>\nemployee, the punishment of dismissal was highly dis-<br \/>\nproportionate looking into the allegations which led to the<br \/>\ndepartmental proceedings. It was submitted that as a<br \/>\nconsequence of order of dismissal, even the pensionary<br \/>\nbenefits would not be available to the family of the<br \/>\ndeceased employee. That cannot be a just proposition if the<br \/>\nunblemished service career of the deceased employee is taken<br \/>\nnote of. As noticed by the Division Bench, the records of<br \/>\nthe proceedings were not produced on fallacious premises<br \/>\nthat they were not available.  Had the records been produced<br \/>\nit could have been proved that the punishment of dismissal<br \/>\nwas disproportionate to the allegations made.  In the<br \/>\nproceedings, main allegations were against another person.<br \/>\nThe only allegation against the deceased employee was that<br \/>\nhe failed to keep proper watch over the other employees. The<br \/>\nallegations were not of such grave magnitude as to warrant<br \/>\ndismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPer contra, Mr. R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor<br \/>\nGeneral submitted  that the view expressed by the Division<br \/>\nBench is on terra farma and on a plain reading of the<br \/>\nrelevant provisions, requirement of approval by the IG as a<br \/>\ncondition precedent to effectuate an order passed by the<br \/>\nprescribed authority, is clearly not warranted. He further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the disciplinary authorities after due<br \/>\nconsideration of the materials on record came to hold that<br \/>\norder of dismissal would be proper. It has not been shown as<br \/>\nto how the same is disproportionate to the proved charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rules 7 and 27 of the Rules deal with appointment other<br \/>\nthan that of superior officers and procedure for the award<br \/>\nof punishments respectively. They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Rule 7:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tOffices and men mentioned in Rules 5(b)<br \/>\nand 5(c) shall be appointed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(1)\tby direct recruitment;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2)\tby deputation from Army or State<br \/>\nPolice Forces;\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tby promotion  as laid down in<br \/>\nChapter IX.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tThe authority to make appointments to<br \/>\nthe various non-gazetted ranks shall be the<br \/>\nCommandant, provided that in the case of<br \/>\nSub-Inspectors and Subedar (Inspector) prior<br \/>\napproval of the Deputy Inspector General of<br \/>\nPolice and the Inspector General<br \/>\nrespectively shall be obtained.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tNon-gazetted officers and men of all<br \/>\nranks shall be enrolled subject to sub-rule\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) above by the Commandant in the manner<br \/>\nprescribed in Section 5 and be appointed by<br \/>\nhim as members of the Force after such<br \/>\nperiod of training as he may consider<br \/>\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule 27: Procedure for the award of<br \/>\npunishment. (a)(The punishment shown as in<br \/>\nitems 1 to 11 in column 2) of the Table<br \/>\nbelow may be inflicted on non-gazetted<br \/>\nofficers and men of the various ranks shown<br \/>\nin each of the heading of columns 3 to 6, by<br \/>\nthe authorities named below such headings<br \/>\nunder the conditions mentioned in column 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>TABLE<\/p>\n<p>S.No.\tPunishment\tSubedar\t\tSub-Ins.\t\tOthers\t\tConst.\t\tRemarks<br \/>\n\t\t\t(Inspector)\tInspector\texcept\t\tand<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tenrolled\t\tenrolled<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfollowers\tfollowers<br \/>\n________________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p>1.\t   2.\t\t\t\t3.\t\t\t       4.\t\t\t5.\t\t\t  6.\t\t\t\t 7<br \/>\n______________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p>1.    Dismissal or\t\tDIGP\t\tDIGP\t\tCommandant\tCommandant\tTo be<br \/>\n       removal from\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinflicted<br \/>\n       the Force\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tafter formal<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDepartmental<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tenquiry&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>_______________________________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p>\tA bare reading of the provisions show that while for<br \/>\nthe purpose of appointment, the approval of the DIG or the<br \/>\nIG, as the case may be, is required to be obtained, that<br \/>\ndoes not make the IG, the appointing authority. The<br \/>\npunishments shown as items 1 to 11 in column 2 of the table<br \/>\ncan be imposed on non-gazetted officers and men of various<br \/>\nranks by the authorities named under headings at columns 3<br \/>\nto 6 in terms of the conditions mentioned in column 7. So<br \/>\nfar as item No.1 in Rule 27 is concerned, Subedar<br \/>\n(Inspector) can be dismissed or removed from the Force by<br \/>\nthe Deputy Inspector General of Police, who is higher in<br \/>\nrank than the Commandant. While considering an almost<br \/>\nidentical provision, this Court held that even when prior<br \/>\nrecommendation is necessary, it does not make the<br \/>\nrecommending\/approving authority the appointing authority.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/723465\/\">(See State of Assam v. Kripanath Sarma and Ors. AIR<\/a> 1967 SC\n<\/p>\n<p>459). In that case, the question was whether the Deputy<br \/>\nInspector of Schools in his capacity as the Assistant<br \/>\nSecretary of the State Board, could terminate the service of<br \/>\nthe concerned employees in view of Section 14(3)(iii) of the<br \/>\nAssam Elementary Education Act (No.30) of 1962 read with<br \/>\nSection 18 of the Assam General Clauses Act (No.II) of 1915.<br \/>\nIt was held that as the Assistant Secretary did not have<br \/>\ncomplete power to appoint teachers, he can do so on the<br \/>\nadvice of the Advisory Board. Even assuming that<br \/>\nrecommendation of the Committee is necessary before<br \/>\nappointment is made by the Assistant Secretary, the fact<br \/>\nstill remains that it is not the committee which appoints<br \/>\nand the appointing authority is the Assistant Secretary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to Rule 7(b), the appointing authority is the<br \/>\nCommandant and since the DIG is of higher rank, there is no<br \/>\nillegality in the order passed by him in passing the order<br \/>\nof dismissal. Just because the IG&#8217;s approval is required for<br \/>\nthe purpose of appointment or promotion, the position of the<br \/>\nCommandant as the appointing authority is not changed and<br \/>\nthe IG does not become the appointing authority.  If the<br \/>\nsubmission made is accepted, it would mean addition of words<br \/>\nor expressions in Rule 27. It is not a case of causus<br \/>\nomissus as contended.  A construction which requires for its<br \/>\nsupport, addition of words has to be avoided.  The words of<br \/>\na statute never shared, in interpretation, be added or<br \/>\nsubtracted from without almost a necessity. It is contrary<br \/>\nto all rules of construction to read words into a statute<br \/>\nunless it is absolutely necessary to do so. Courts cannot<br \/>\nreframe the words used by the Legislature as it has no power<br \/>\nto legislate.  A matter which, for the sake of argument,<br \/>\nshould have been provided but has not been provided for in a<br \/>\nstatute cannot be supplied by the Courts as to do so will be<br \/>\nlegislation and not construction.  (See Johnson vs. Moreton<br \/>\n(1978) 3 All E.r. 37 <a href=\"\/doc\/1879682\/\">(H.L.), Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray vs. Mr.<br \/>\nJustice B. Lentin and Ors. (AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 2267).\tThere  is no<br \/>\npresumption that a casus omissus exists, and language<br \/>\npermitting the Courts should avoid creating a casus omissus<br \/>\nwhere there is none. Therefore, the conclusion of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench in holding that the order of dismissal passed<br \/>\nby the DIG was legal, does not suffer from any infirmity to<br \/>\nwarrant interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>However, the other questions raised by the appellant<br \/>\nneed consideration.\tUndisputedly, the order of dismissal was<br \/>\npassed in disciplinary proceedings. Referring to the nature<br \/>\nof allegations, it was highlighted that when for more than<br \/>\n20 years the deceased employee had rendered unblemished<br \/>\nservice order of dismissal should not have been passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no scope for interference in a case where<br \/>\npunishment is found not disproportionate to the proved<br \/>\ncharges that too in exceptional cases. It is to be noted<br \/>\nthat there was no consideration of these aspects by learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge or the Division Bench. Before learned Single<br \/>\nJudge such a stand appears to have been taken.\tBut only on<br \/>\nthe ground that DIG had no competence to pass the order of<br \/>\ndismissal, the order was quashed.  In appeal, Division Bench<br \/>\nonly dealt with legality of that conclusion.  There is no<br \/>\ndefinite material as to whether these pleas were pressed<br \/>\ninto service before the High Court.  No other aspect was<br \/>\nconsidered. But, as noted above, records of disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are not available, but some particulars of the<br \/>\ncharges and the conclusions are available on record.  They<br \/>\nare not sufficient to conclude one way or the other. Taking<br \/>\ninto account past service records and non-availability of<br \/>\nfull records of the disciplinary proceedings, the interest<br \/>\nof justice would be best served if on the peculiar facts<br \/>\nRupees 2.5 lacs is paid as ex-gratia payment by the<br \/>\nrespondents to the appellant within two months from today.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2313 of 2003 PETITIONER: Smt. Kanta Devi RESPONDENT: Union of India and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/03\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL &amp; ARIJIT PASAYAT. [&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-112633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-07T05:47:52+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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T05:47:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1790,\"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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-07T05:47:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-07T05:47:52+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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T05:47:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003"},"wordCount":1790,"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\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003","name":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-07T05:47:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kanta-devi-vs-union-of-india-and-anr-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kanta Devi vs Union Of India And Anr on 12 March, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/112633","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=112633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}