{"id":114391,"date":"2003-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003"},"modified":"2014-02-27T03:04:38","modified_gmt":"2014-02-26T21:34:38","slug":"smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 01\/08\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\n\nW.P. No.21660 OF 2001\n\n1.  Smt. K. Adilakshmi\n2.  A. Annamalai\n3.  M. Manjan\n4.  Smt. V. Jagathambal\n5.  Kolanji                             .....    Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  State of Tamil Nadu\n    rep. by Collector\n    Villupuram District\n    Villupuram\n\n2.  The Block Development Officer\n    Kallakurichi Panchayat Union\n    Kallakurichi\n\n3.  The Assistant Returning Officer\n    Kallakurichi Panchayat Union\n    Kallakurichi\n\n4.  A. Arunachalam\n\n5.  T. Amutha\n\n6.  Natesan                     .....         Respondents\n\nPetition under Art.226 of the Constitution  of  India,  praying  for  Writ  of\nMandamus as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioners ::  Mr.  S.  Udayakumar\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  S.Kandasamy, Spl.G.P.\n\nFor respondents 1 and 3 ::  Mr.  V.  Dhakasekar for R2\n                        Mr.  P.  Tamizhvel\n                        for respondents 4 to 6\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                This  is  a  pathetic  story  where  the democratic process of<br \/>\nelection was not only polluted and contaminated but some  serious  misconducts<br \/>\nhave  been performed and yet this Court is not in a position to do anything in<br \/>\nthe matter.  Before proceeding further, it must be  mentioned  that  the  main<br \/>\nsubject of  this  writ  petition  has become infructuous.  The following facts<br \/>\nwill help us understand the situation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  There were going to be elections of Village  Panchayat  at<br \/>\nRanganathapuram village in Villupuram District.  The second respondent herein,<br \/>\nviz.   the  Block  Development  Officer, Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, was the<br \/>\nReturning Officer.  The elections were to be held on 16-10-2 001 and they were<br \/>\naccordingly held.  We are concerned with the election process  in  respect  of<br \/>\nWard  No.3,  which  was  a multi-member ward in the sense that from that ward,<br \/>\nthree members, viz.    one  lady  scheduled  caste  candidate  and  two  other<br \/>\nscheduled caste  candidates,  were  to be elected.  Counting for this election<br \/>\nwas done on 21-10-2001 and to begin with, petitioners 1, 2 and 3  herein  were<br \/>\ndeclared  to  be the successful candidates and they were given the certificate<br \/>\nof election under the signature  of  the  second  respondent,  who  was  being<br \/>\nassisted  by  the  third  respondent Assistant Returning Officer, Kallakurichi<br \/>\nPanchayat Union.  Naturally, the petitioners, who were given  the  certificate<br \/>\nof election in their favour duly signed in Form 25, expected to be sworn in as<br \/>\nthe Members of the Panchayat Union, but to their utter dismay, they found that<br \/>\nthree other persons,  viz.  M\/s.  Amudha, Arunachalam and Natesan were invited<br \/>\nto take oath in the first meeting of the council.  The said three persons were<br \/>\nstated to have taken oath  in  the  first  meeting  of  the  council  held  on<br \/>\n25-10-2001  and  were  then  inducted as the duly sworn members of the village<br \/>\npanchayat.  The petitioners straight away rushed before  this  Court  by  this<br \/>\nwrit petition,  which  seems  to have been filed on 5-11-2001, i.e.  about ten<br \/>\ndays after the concerned three persons having taken the oath.  The petitioners<br \/>\nhave been studiously careful enough not to join  the  said  three  persons  as<br \/>\nparties to  the  writ  petition.    The petitioners came with a very innocuous<br \/>\nprayer, which is couched in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order<br \/>\nor direction, directing the  respondents  herein  to  permit  the  petitioners<br \/>\nherein  to  take  oath as ward members in the second respondent meeting of the<br \/>\nRenganathapuram Village Panchayat, Kallakurichi  Panchayat  Union,  Villupuram<br \/>\nDistrict  and pass such further or other orders as this Hon&#8217;ble Court may deem<br \/>\nfit and proper and thus render justice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>When the whole writ petition is perused, it  is  seen  that  the  petitioners,<br \/>\nafter  setting  out  the  basic  facts  regarding the holding of the election,<br \/>\ncounting of the  votes  pooled,  declaration  of  results,  etc.    stated  in<br \/>\nparagraph  4  that  when  the  petitioners  approached  the  second respondent<br \/>\nReturning Officer for taking oath as contemplated under Sec.40  of  the  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu  Panchayats  Act, 1994 (in short &#8216;the Act&#8217;), they came to know that there<br \/>\nwas a first council meeting to be held on 2 5-10-2001 and when the petitioners<br \/>\nwent to the council for attending that  meeting,  the  second  respondent  had<br \/>\ninsisted  upon  them  to  hand  over  the  original certificate of declaration<br \/>\nalready given by him.  The petitioners then insisted that  those  certificates<br \/>\nwere  being sought for in a mala fide manner by the second respondent and that<br \/>\nthe petitioners were erroneously not  allowed  to  take  oath  on  25-10-2001.<br \/>\nPetitioners  do  mention  that they were not able to take oath on 25-10-2001 .<br \/>\nIn paragraph 6, it is mentioned that the other four elected members took  oath<br \/>\non  that  day  and  that  the  Vice  President  of  the Council was elected on<br \/>\n31-10-2001.  It is then tried to be shown that the only dispute was  that  the<br \/>\npetitioners  were  not  allowed  to  take oath though they were the successful<br \/>\ncandidates in the election.  It is further stated  in  the  affidavit  that  a<br \/>\nlawyer&#8217;s  notice  was  served  on  the  Collector, first respondent herein, on<br \/>\n29-10-2001, who promised to look into the matter, but  did  nothing.    It  is<br \/>\nfurther  pointed  out  that no notice for the meeting was served on any of the<br \/>\npetitioners and then it is stated in paragraph 7  that  the  respondents  were<br \/>\nillegally trying  to prevent the petitioners from taking oath.  From the whole<br \/>\nstructure of the petition, it is apparent that  the  petition  was  restricted<br \/>\nonly  to  the  subject of taking oath as the members of the Village Panchayat.<br \/>\nThe reference to other persons who took oath on that day is studiously omitted<br \/>\nin the affidavit  and  it  is  probably  in  that  view  that  the  prayer  is<br \/>\nrestricted, which will be apparent from the very language thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  When the matter came up before this Court, this Court only<br \/>\nissued rule  on  9-11-2001.    Along  with  the writ petition, a miscellaneous<br \/>\npetition (WMP No.32024 of 2001) was also filed in which a direction was sought<br \/>\nin the identical terms of the main prayer clause in the writ  petition.    The<br \/>\nlearned Judge, however, only issued a notice.  Private notice was also allowed<br \/>\nand all  these  orders  came to be passed on the same day, i.e.  on 9-11-2001.<br \/>\nWhen the miscellaneous petition came up for further hearing on the question of<br \/>\ninterim relief on 8-1-200 3, the learned counsel for  the  petitioner  made  a<br \/>\nstatement  that  the  direction  petition  had  been rendered infructuous and,<br \/>\ntherefore, that petition was disposed of.  However, the hearing  of  the  writ<br \/>\npetition  itself  was  expedited and that is how the matter has come before me<br \/>\nnow.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  In the meantime, respondents 2 and 1 have come up with the<br \/>\nreply affidavits.  The gravamen of these affidavits seems  to  be  that  after<br \/>\ncounting of the votes on 21.10.2001 though the certificate of election in Form<br \/>\nNo.25  was  handed over to the petitioners that was actually wrong and because<br \/>\nof the fraud played on the part of the petitioners themselves.    It  is  then<br \/>\naccepted that  three  other  persons,  viz.    M\/  s.Amudha,  Arunachalam  and<br \/>\nNatarajan represented that in fact they were the elected  candidates  as  they<br \/>\nhad  secured  more  number  of  votes  and,  therefore, the records were again<br \/>\nverified on that  very  day  and  it  was  actually  found  that  the  elected<br \/>\ncandidates   were  only  M\/s.Amudha,  Arunachalam  and  Natesan  and  not  the<br \/>\npetitioners and, therefore, the certificates of election issued in  favour  of<br \/>\nthe petitioners were cancelled and fresh certificates of election were granted<br \/>\nin  favour  of  the  above  said  three  persons and on that basis those three<br \/>\npersons were administered oath and that  even  the  meetings  of  the  council<br \/>\nthereafter  were over and now almost fifteen meetings have been over after the<br \/>\nfirst meeting and that there would be no question of entertainment of the writ<br \/>\npetition.  It is also suggested that the writ petition has become  infructuous<br \/>\nbecause  the  initial prayer made in the writ petition did not survive because<br \/>\nof the elapse of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  Mr.  Udayakumar,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners,<br \/>\nhowever,  pointed  out  that  he  has made an amendment application during the<br \/>\npendency of the writ petition wherein, he  has  sought  the  quashing  of  the<br \/>\ncertificates  of election issued in favour of the three abovenamed candidates.<br \/>\nLearned counsel also submits that he has filed the documents to  suggest  that<br \/>\nfresh  certificates  of declaration were made in favour of those three persons<br \/>\nafter cancellation of the certificates of declaration made in  favour  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  There is also another impleadment application on behalf of<br \/>\nthe  three  elected  candidates  who  were allowed to take oath on 25-10-2001.<br \/>\nThat application was ordered on 25-4-2003.  They have also filed a counter  in<br \/>\nwhich they  denied  that  ners  were the elected candidates.  They pointed out<br \/>\nthat the number of votes secured by them was more than  the  number  of  votes<br \/>\nsecured by  the  petitioners.   They further pointed out that in the chaos and<br \/>\nmelee which took place during the counting process, the petitioners managed to<br \/>\ninterpolate the result-sheet and create some false documents on the  basis  of<br \/>\nwhich  an  entirely  incorrect  Form  No.25 came to be passed in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioners and when ultimately they pointed out all these  to  the  Returning<br \/>\nOfficer,  the  Returning  Officer  rectified  the  mistake  and  issued  fresh<br \/>\ncertificates of declaration to them by certifying their victory and they  were<br \/>\nrightly allowed to take oath.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  On this factual background, it falls for me to consider as<br \/>\nto  whether  the  writ  petition  should be entertained at all and what is the<br \/>\ncourse of action to be taken further.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  The following are the admitted facts:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.That there were certificates of declaration issued in favour  of  the  three<br \/>\nnewly added respondents certifying their election from Ward No.3;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.that those three respondents were allowed to take oath on 25-10-200 1;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.that  these  petitioners  did not file any election petition challenging the<br \/>\nso-called election of the three newly added respondents;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.that in the writ petition, the petitioners did  not  join  the  three  newly<br \/>\nadded respondents as parties to begin with;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.that  on  the  day  when  the  writ  petition  came  to  be filed, the three<br \/>\nrespondents had already taken oath but their election was not challenged  even<br \/>\nin the writ petition;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.that  the  writ  petition  was completely silent about the three respondents<br \/>\nhaving taken oath on 25-10-2001<br \/>\n(though the petitioners also claimed in the writ petition to  have  approached<br \/>\nthe authorities on the very day of the first meeting of the council); and\n<\/p>\n<p>7.that  it  is  now  by  the  amendment  petition  that  the  certificates  of<br \/>\ndeclaration made in favour of the three newly added respondents was sought  to<br \/>\nbe quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  I have deliberately given the above facts in order to show<br \/>\nthat this  writ petition, as it stands today, has become infructuous.  It will<br \/>\nhave to be firstly appreciated that in the writ petition, as was filed,  there<br \/>\nis  no  mention  of any candidate having taken oath as the Ward Member elected<br \/>\nfrom Ward No.3 on 25-10-2001.  When we carefully see the writ petition,  there<br \/>\nis  a  specific assertion that the petitioners had gone to that meeting and it<br \/>\nis at the meeting itself that the second  respondent  insisted  upon  them  to<br \/>\nreturn  the certificates of election which the Returning Officer had signed in<br \/>\ntheir favour.  Therefore, it cannot be countenanced that  they  did  not  even<br \/>\nknow  of  the three other candidates having taken oath in that meeting itself.<br \/>\nThere is also a reference in the writ petition to the  election  of  the  Vice<br \/>\nPresident of  the Council of having taken place on 31-10-2001.  It, therefore,<br \/>\ngoes without saying that the petitioners  must  have  known  about  the  three<br \/>\ncandidates  who  actually  took  oath  and who were actually treated to be the<br \/>\nelected candidates from Ward No.3.  If this was so, then, firstly, it was  the<br \/>\nduty  of  the petitioners to join them as parties to the present writ petition<br \/>\nbut, the petitioners remained quiet about it and secondly,  petitioners  could<br \/>\nhave  straight  away  proceeded to file an election petition against the three<br \/>\nnewly added respondents, challenging their election.    The  petitioners  have<br \/>\nchosen to  do  neither.  The petitioners have instead chosen to file this writ<br \/>\npetition with a limited prayer showing as if that though they were the elected<br \/>\ncandidates, they were not being allowed to take oath and that the  controversy<br \/>\nwas limited  only  to that extent.  In fact, on the day when the writ petition<br \/>\nwas filed, the petitioners were bound to know that the second  respondent  has<br \/>\ntreated  some  three other persons to be the elected candidates from Ward No.3<br \/>\nand  has  also  issued  the  certificates  of  declaration  in  their  favour.<br \/>\nPetitioners   could  have  always  asked  for  the  certified  copies  of  the<br \/>\ncertificates of declaration issued  in  favour  of  the  three  newly  elected<br \/>\ncandidates because  that  is  the right of the petitioners.  Even that was not<br \/>\ndone at the time when the writ petition was filed  and  ultimately  argued  on<br \/>\n9-11-2001.  Therefore, on the date when the petition was argued for the motion<br \/>\nhearing  itself  the  petition  had  become  infructuous  because there was no<br \/>\nquestion of any oath having taken by the petitioners in the first  meeting  of<br \/>\nthe  council or whatever meeting because they were bound to know that the oath<br \/>\nwas taken by some other three persons on 25-10-2001 which meeting was actually<br \/>\nattended by the petitioners.  Be that as it may, this, however,  was  followed<br \/>\nby  an  amendment  application  in  which  the  prayer  is  made  to quash the<br \/>\ncertificates of declaration issued  in  favour  of  those  three  newly  added<br \/>\nrespondents.  Unfortunately, that cannot be done in a writ petition.  That had<br \/>\nto be  done  only  by  filing  a  proper  election petition.  Therefore, it is<br \/>\nobvious that this writ petition has become infructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Before parting with, it must  be  expressed  that  it  is<br \/>\nreally  a  pathetic  manner  in  which  the  whole election seems to have been<br \/>\nconducted.  Two utterly senseless affidavits came to be filed on behalf of the<br \/>\nfirst respondent Collector and second respondent  Block  Development  Officer.<br \/>\nThe  second  respondent without explaining anything accepts that he had signed<br \/>\nthe certificates of declaration in Form No.25 in favour  of  the  petitioners.<br \/>\nIt  is  not  understood  as  to how a Returning Officer, who was of a Gazetted<br \/>\nOfficer  of  Class  II  stature  straight  away  signed  not  one  but   three<br \/>\ncertificates  of declaration in favour of the candidates who were not actually<br \/>\nelected at all.  It is not known as to what kind of control was  exercised  by<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent  officer  on  the third respondent who was actually in<br \/>\ncharge of the counting of the votes as  per  the  contentions  raised  by  the<br \/>\nlearned Government  Pleader.    It  is  really  pathetic that the two officers<br \/>\nshould have been setting up a theory  of  fraud  having  been  played  on  the<br \/>\ncounting   authorities   and  the  interpolations  having  been  made  by  the<br \/>\npetitioners.  It is not understood how those interpolations could  at  all  be<br \/>\nmade  unless  the counting authority itself was for whatever reason a privy to<br \/>\nthat.   It is really strange that no action should have been taken against the<br \/>\nsecond respondent Returning Officer.  It is reported  that  some  departmental<br \/>\naction  has  been initiated against the third respondent but even that has not<br \/>\nbeen completed as yet.  One only hopes that at least at this  juncture,  after<br \/>\nreading  this  judgment,  the  Government  wake  up and initiate proper action<br \/>\nagainst the erring officials.  I do not want to say anything more than this in<br \/>\nthis writ petition because all this will have to be examined thoroughly by the<br \/>\nGovernment as also the Election Commission of the State.  It is only hoped  by<br \/>\nthis  Court  that  the  elections  are  not  conducted in the manner they were<br \/>\nconducted by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   With  this,  the  writ  petition  is  disposed   of   as<br \/>\ninfructuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Jai<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Collector<br \/>\nVillupuram District<br \/>\nVillupuram<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Block Development Officer<br \/>\nKallakurichi Panchayat Union<br \/>\nKallakurichi<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Assistant Returning Officer<br \/>\nKallakurichi Panchayat Union<br \/>\nKallakurichi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 01\/08\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR W.P. No.21660 OF 2001 1. Smt. K. Adilakshmi 2. A. Annamalai 3. M. Manjan 4. Smt. V. Jagathambal 5. Kolanji &#8230;.. Petitioners -Vs- [&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-114391","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>Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 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-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-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=\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2515,\"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\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 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-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003"},"wordCount":2515,"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\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003","name":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-26T21:34:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-k-adilakshmi-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. K. Adilakshmi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 August, 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:\/\/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\/114391","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=114391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}