{"id":123417,"date":"2000-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000"},"modified":"2017-11-17T10:50:06","modified_gmt":"2017-11-17T05:20:06","slug":"l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, Shivaraj V. Patil<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nL. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t28\/09\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM. Jagannadha Rao  &  Shivaraj V. Patil\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Shivaraj V. Patil,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n    Since  these  petitions raise common questions based  on
\nsimilar\t set  of  facts they are being disposed of  by\tthis
\ncommon judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t petitioners  filed their respective writ  petitions
\nagainst the respondents praying for the publication of their
\nresults\t  and  to  issue   diploma  in\tteachers   training,
\ncontending  that  on  successful completion  of\t the  higher
\nsecondary  they underwent secondary grade teachers  training
\nin  different training institutes between the period 1989 to
\n1991;\tthey  had taken public examination in May, 1992\t but
\ntheir  results were not published and certificates were\t not
\nawarded.   The\tinstitutes  in\t which\tthey  had  undergone
\ntraining  course had recognition but the same was  withdrawn
\nsubsequently.\tThe learned single Judge dismissed the\twrit
\npetitions  following  the judgment of the Division Bench  of
\nthe  High Court in P.M.\t Joseph vs.  The State of Tamil Nadu
\nand  others (Writ Petition No.\t9494 of 1992).\tWrit appeals
\nfiled  against\tthe order of learned single Judge were\talso
\ndismissed  affirming  the view taken by the  learned  single
\nJudge stating that the petitioners were only entitled to get
\nthe  results  declared\tand were not entitled  to  get\tmark
\nsheets\tor diplomas\/certificates as the institutes in  which
\nthey  had  undergone  training were de-\t recognized.   Hence
\nthese petitions are brought before us in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioners urged: –\n<\/p>\n
    1.\tThe petitioners having undergone the training course
\nin  the\t institutions, which had recognition on the date  of
\npublic\texamination, could not be deprived of their right to
\nobtain\tmark sheets and diplomas\/certificates merely on\t the
\nground that those institutes were de-recognized by virtue of
\na  decision  rendered  by the High Court subsequent  to\t the
\npublic examination.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\t The  treatment\t of the respondents was\t unfair\t and
\ndiscriminatory in the case of the petitioners inasmuch as to
\nfew  others  similarly\tplaced the  respondents\t have  given
\ndiplomas\/certificates although with an endorsement that they
\nhave undergone training in unrecognized institutes.\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the respondents made submissions
\nsupporting the orders impugned in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
    In order to appreciate the rival contentions we consider
\nit  useful  to refer to the decision in P.M.  Joseph’s\tcase
\n(supra).   In  the said judgment the Division Bench  of\t the
\nHigh Court in para 11 has stated thus:\t–\n<\/p>\n
    “11.   We have no doubt that orders or recognition\twere
\ngranted\t only on extraneous considerations as alleged by the
\npetitioner.   We  have\talready\t  referred  to\tthe  express
\nallegation  in\tparagraph 20 of the  petitioner’s  affidavit
\nthat  a\t few  officials working in the Secretariat  and\t the
\nDirector   of\tSchool\tEducation   issued  the\t orders\t  of
\nrecognition   as  dictated  by\t the  Hon’ble  Minister\t for
\nEducation.   We\t doubt, the Minister is not a party to\tthis
\nwrit petition and we may not be able to investigate the said
\nallegation as against him.  But, the Secretary to Government
\nis  representing  the  State  as first\trespondent  and\t the
\nDirector of School education is the second respondent.\tThey
\nhave  not  chosen  to  deny the said  allegations  in  their
\ncounter\t affidavits.   The facts referred to by us above  as
\ncalled\tout from Annexures V and VI filed by the  Government
\nat our instance, clearly show that the orders of recognition
\nwere  passed  only on a specific direction from a person  in
\nthe  higher  echelons at the ministerial level.\t  Otherwise,
\nthe  officials, who are before us, would not have been\tbold
\nenough\tto  pass  such\torders in  utter  violation  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tG.O.Ms.\t Nos.535 and 536 dated 17.5.1989  as
\nwell  as the rules which were in force prior to the  passing
\nof  the said G.O.s.  Thus, the Government, to say the least,
\nplayed havoc in the matter of Teacher Training Education and
\nruined\tthe same.  The direct impact would necessarily be on
\nthe Secondary Grade Education, as the holders of the Diploma
\nin  Teachers  Training Education are the persons who are  to
\nhandle\tthe  classes I to VIII in Secondary  Grade  Schools.
\nThe  Government\t has not only failed to do its duty  but  is
\nguilty of gross abuse of powers.”\n<\/p>\n
    As is evident from the paragraph 14 of the same judgment
\nthat  a\t contention similar to the contention No.  1,  urged
\nbefore\tus  in this case, was raised but it  was  negatived.
\nThe  position  as  to  whether\t the  candidates  like\t the
\npetitioners  were  entitled  for the issue of a\t diploma  or
\ncertificate was abundantly made clear in paragraph 22 of the
\nsaid judgment, which reads:  –\n<\/p>\n
    “22.   It may be said that only some of the institutions
\nlisted\tin Annexure V and VI are bogus institutions and\t the
\nremaining are genuine.\tBut it has been established now that
\nnone  of  the  institutions excepting Annai  Sathya  Teacher
\nTraining  Institute for Women has fulfilled the requirements
\nof  the\t rules.\t Hence, we are constrained to quash all\t the
\norders of recognition passed by the Government and setout in
\nAnnexure  V  and VI excepting G.O.No.(2B) 6, Education\t(VI)
\ndated  8-1-1992\t in favour of Annai Sathya Teacher  Training
\nInstitute (W), Periya Kumitti, South Arcot District shown in
\nitem No.  115 in Annexure V.  If any of the institutions has
\nsince fulfilled the requirements of the rules, it is open to
\nthem  to  satisfy  the authorities to that effect  and\tseek
\norders\tof recognition.\t If the students of the institutions
\nwhere recognition has been quashed, have already written the
\nexaminations,  the results thereof shall be published by the
\nrespondents.  But, the publication will not confer any right
\nwhatever  on  the institutions or their students to get\t any
\nconsequential  relief or benefit such as issue of diploma or
\ncertificate  of this writ petition, and of an sitting singly
\ndismissed  W.M.P.  13729 of 1992 filed by the petitioner for
\ninjunction  restraining\t the publication of results  of\t the
\nexaminations  held  in\tMay,  July and\tAugust,\t 1992.\t The
\npetitioner  filed  W.A.\t No.  1209 of 1992 against the\tsaid
\norder  and the First Bench of this Court passed an order  on
\n23.9.1992  in  C.M.P.\tNos.   12839   and  12840  of\t1992
\nrestraining the respondents from issuing certificates to the
\ncandidates  who wrote the examinations until further  orders
\nwhile  permitting  them\t to  declare   the  results  of\t the
\nexaminations.\tIn the circumstances, we direct the students
\nof  the institutions, the recognition of which has now\tbeen
\nquashed, by this order, are not entitled to get certificates
\nor diplomas from the respondents.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    This  Court\t in St.\t John’s Teachers Training  Institute
\n(for women), Madurai and others vs.  State of Tamil Nadu and
\nothers\tdealing with conditions for recognition of  minority
\nteachers  training  institutes\tlaid down under\t Tamil\tNadu
\nMinority  Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant)  Rules,
\n1977, in para 9 has stated thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
    “9.\t  The  High  Court rightly emphasised the  need\t for
\nmaintaining  very  high\t standards   of\t Education,  Sports,
\nadministration\tand  maintenance  of the  Teachers  Training
\nInstitutes.   These  Institutions are established  with\t the
\navowed\tobject\tof training teachers and  educationists\t who
\nhave  to shoulder the responsibility of moulding the nation.
\nThis  Court  in\t N.M.\tNageshwaramma v.   State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh & Anr.<\/a>\t[1986] Supp SCC 166 observed as under:\t–\n<\/p>\n
    “The  Teachers  Training Institutes are meant  to  teach
\nchildren  of  impressionable age and we cannot let loose  on
\nthe  innocent  and  unwary children, teachers who  have\t not
\nreceived  proper  and adequate training.  True they will  be
\nrequired to pass the examination but that may not be enough.
\nTraining  for  a  certain  minimum   period  in\t a  properly
\norganized  and\tequipped  Training   Institute\tis  probably
\nessential before a teacher may be duly launched.”\n<\/p>\n
    Jagannatha Shetty, J.  speaking for this Court in Andhra
\nKesari\tEducational Society v.\tDirector of School Education
\n& Ors.\tJ.T.<\/a>  (1988) 4 S.C.  431 observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “Though  teaching is the last choice in the job  market,
\nthe  role  of teacher is central to all processes of  formal
\neducation.  The teacher alone could bring out the skills and
\nintellectual  capabilities of students.\t He is the  ‘engine’
\nof  the educational system.  He is a principal instrument in
\nawakening  the\tchild  to cultural values.  He needs  to  be
\nendowed\t and  energised\t with needed  potential\t to  deliver
\nenlightened  service expected of him.  His quality should be
\nsuch  as  would\t inspire  and\tmotivate  into\taction\t the
\nbenefitter.   He must keep himself abreast of ever  changing
\nconditions.    He  is  not  to\t perform  in  a\t wooden\t and
\nunimaginative way.  He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies
\nand  attitudes\tand  infuse  nobler and\t national  ideas  in
\nyounger\t minds.\t His involvement in national integration  is
\nmore  important,  indeed indispensable.\t It  is,  therefore,
\nneedless  to  state  that teachers should  be  subjected  to
\nrigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency.  It has
\ngreater\t relevance to the needs of the day.  The ill trained
\nor  sub-  standard  teachers  would be\tdetrimental  to\t our
\neducational  system;   if not a punishment on our  children.
\nThe Government and the University must, therefore, take care
\nto  see\t that inadequacy in the training of teachers is\t not
\ncompounded by any extraneous consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tState of Maharashtra v.\t Vikas.\t Sahebrao Roundale &
\nOrs.,.J.T<\/a>  (1992)  5 S.C.  175, K.  Ramaswamy, J.   speaking
\nfor this Court observed as under:  –\n<\/p>\n
    “The  teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career,
\ncharacter  and\tmoral  fibres and aptitude  for\t educational
\nexcellence  in\timpressive  young   children.\tThe   formal
\neducation needs proper equipment by the teachers to meet the
\nchallenges of the day to impart lessons with latest technics
\nto the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook.
\nA  well-equipped  teacher could bring the needed skills\t and
\nintellectual capabilities of the students in their pursuits.
\nThe teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents,
\nas  he\tis a Principal instrument to awakening the child  to
\nthe  cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline.
\nThe  teachers,\ttherefore, must keep abreast  ever  changing
\ntechnics,  the needs of the society and to cope up with\t the
\npsychological  approach to the aptitudes of the children  to
\nperform\t that  pivotal role.  In short teachers need  to  be
\nendowed\t and  energised with needed potential to  serve\t the
\nneeds  of  the\tsociety.  The qualitative  training  in\t the
\ntraining colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them
\ninto  action to the benefit of the students.  For  equipping
\nsuch  trainee  students\t in  a\t school\t or  a\tcollege\t all
\nfacilities  and\t equipments  are  absolutely  necessary\t and
\ninstitutions  bereft  thereof  have no place  to  exist\t nor
\nentitled  to recognition.  In that behalf compliance of\t the
\nstatutory  requirement\tis  insisted upon.   Slackening\t the
\nstandard  and judicial fiat to control the mode of education
\nand  examining\tsystem\tare  detrimental  to  the  efficient
\nmanagement of the education.”\n<\/p>\n
    As\tcan be seen from paragraph 16 in the said case\talso
\nlearned senior counsel representing the parties pleaded that
\nthe  results  of  the students, who had\t already  taken\t the
\nexaminations,  be directed to be declared and if successful,
\ncertificates  be  awarded to them.  Not accepting  the\tsaid
\nargument this Court in para 19 has held thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
    “19.   We see no ground to differ with the view taken by
\nthe  High  Court.   This court in N.M.\t Nageshramma’s\tcase
\n(supra)\t has held that training in a properly organised\t and
\nequipped  training institute is essential before a candidate
\nbecomes\t qualified to receive teachers training certificate.
\nSimply\tpassing\t the examination is not enough.\t The  future
\nteachers  of the country must pass through the\tinstitutions
\nwhich  have  maintained\t standards  of\texcellence  at\t all
\nlevels.”\n<\/p>\n
    Thus  looking  to the decision of the Division Bench  of
\nthe  High  Court in P.M.  Joseph’s case and the decision  of
\nthis Court in St.  John’s Teachers Training Institute’s case
\nabovementioned, it is clear that even the candidates who had
\nwritten\t the  examination at the time when their  institutes
\nhad recognition, were not entitled for diplomas\/certificates
\nconsequent  upon  de-  recognition   of\t their\tinstitutions
\nsubsequently and that such candidates were only entitled for
\npublication  of\t the  results of the examination  taken\t and
\nnothing more.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned  single  Judge\t in   these  cases  of\t the
\npetitioners,  consistent with the legal position covered  by
\nthe  decisions\taforementioned was right in taking the\tview
\nthat  the petitioners were entitled only for the declaration
\nof  the\t results  of  the  examination\tand  on\t account  of
\nsubsequent  de-recognition  of the institutes in which\tthey
\nunderwent training courses were not entitled for issuance of
\nmark  sheets  or diplomas.  The Division Bench of  the\tHigh
\nCourt had no good reason to disturb the orders passed by the
\nlearned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned  counsel  for the petitioners relied  on  a
\ndecision  of the same learned single Judge of the High court
\nin  the\t case of Jhansi Rani and others vs.  The  Secretary,
\nThe  Director of Government Examinations, Chennai and others
\n.   In our view this decision does not help the petitioners.
\nThat  was  a  case  in which petitioners sought\t a  writ  of
\nmandamus  directing  the  respondents\tto  issue  duplicate
\ncertificate  of the teacher training examination, which\t was
\nheld before 1989 contending that certificates issued to them
\nearlier,  were\tlost.\tThis judgment was delivered  by\t the
\nlearned\t  single  Judge\t on   17th  November,  1997.\tS.S.
\nSubramani,J.   the  same  learned Judge in the\tcase  of  D.
\nBalamurugan  and  others  vs.  The State of Tamil  Nadu\t and
\nothers\tdelivered  judgment on 19th January, 1998  following
\nthe case of P.M.  Joseph (supra) rejecting the prayer of the
\npetitioners to issue mark sheet and diploma.\n<\/p>\n
    Yet\t in the case of The Director of School Education vs.
\nA.   Dennis  Lilly Burk Mary and others a Division Bench  of
\nthe same High Court has held thus:  –\n<\/p>\n
    “It is not necessary for us to go through the history of
\nthe  Teacher Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu,
\nexcept\tto say that they found their Waterloo when a  public
\ninterest litigation was commenced in respect of such Teacher
\nTraining  Institutes in the State and the Division Bench had
\noccasion  to  go through the entire history of\tthe  Teacher
\nTraining  Institutes in the State.  Therefore, so far as the
\nstudents  of the 5th respondent institute is concerned,\t the
\nquestion  had been well and squarely decided once for all by
\nthe  Division Bench.  The judgment of the Division Bench has
\nbeen acclaimed by the Apex Court and was affirmed.  There is
\nno  room  for  extending  any sympathy\tin  favour  of\tsuch
\ninstitutes  or\tthe  students,\twho are said  to  have\tbeen
\ntrained\t in  such  institutes.\t In  fact,  this  particular
\nschool,\t viz.,\tthe  5th respondent – school  had  disobeyed
\nevery  order  of the school authorities even at the time  of
\nthe  grant of temporary recognition.  Temporary\t recognition
\nwas  in\t fact  granted\tonly   for  admitting  40  students.
\nAdmittedly  the school entertained more than 200 students in
\nthe  class  only  to  benefit  themselves.   Any  amount  of
\ncriticism  and\tcomments by this Court only seem to fall  on
\ndeaf ears.  The petitioners can only get at the hands of the
\nCourt,\tdirection to the respondents to publish the  results
\nand  nothing  more.   In  other words, as  observed  by\t the
\nDivision  Bench, it is made clear that the students are\t not
\nentitled  to  get  any\tcertificates or\t diplomas  from\t the
\nappellants.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
    We\tmay add here that, in relation to teachers  training
\ncourse,\t mere  passing of public examination is not  enough.
\nIt  must  be  coupled with proper training in  a  recognized
\ninstitute in order to get meaningful and purposeful results.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence  the first contention urged by the learned counsel
\nfor  the  petitioners,\tin  our\t  view,\t is  untenable\t and
\nconsequently it is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    As\tregards\t second\t contention  we\t asked\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  petitioners\tas to what  is\tthe  use  or
\nadvantage  of  getting the diploma\/certificate,\t which\twill
\ncontain\t an  endorsement that a candidate has studied in  an
\nunrecognized  institute.   He  submitted that might  be\t the
\ncandidates  will get employment in some private schools.  In
\nthe  counter affidavit filed by the respondents reference is
\nmade to the case of P.M.  Joseph and the case of St.  John’s
\nTeacher\t Training Institute and it is stated that in view of
\nthe  said judgments petitioners cannot seek direction to get
\nmark  sheet or diploma\/certificate.  Further the petitioners
\nwere  bound by the Division Bench judgment of the High Court
\ndelivered   on\t27.4.1993  (P.M.    Joseph’s  case)  as\t the
\ninstitutions  in  which the petitioners\t underwent  training
\ncourses\t were  de-recognized and that such  candidates\twere
\nonly  entitled\tto  get\t their results\tof  the\t examination
\npublished  and were not entitled for issuance of either mark
\nsheets or diplomas\/ certificates.  The petitioners could not
\napproach  the  High Court again for the same relief after  a
\nperiod\tof six years.  Paragraph 5 of the counter  affidavit
\nreads:-\n<\/p>\n
    “It is therefore submitted that in view of the facts and
\ncircumstances  stated above the petitioners are not entitled
\nto  have  the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for an  order
\nenabling  them\tto  get mark sheet and the diploma  with  an
\nendorsement  that the petitioners studied in an unrecognized
\ninstitution.\tIt  is\tfurther\t  submitted  that  the\tsaid
\ncertificate with such endorsement will not serve any purpose
\nto  the\t petitioners but on the other hand the\tissuance  of
\nsuch  certificate will give room for manipulations as  there
\nare  thousands\tof students whose results had been  declared
\nbut  they were not provided with Diploma certificate or mark
\nsheet  as  per\tthe judgment of the Division  Bench  of\t the
\nHon’ble\t High Court of Madras.\tIt is respectfully submitted
\nthat  the  release  of\tmark sheets  and  diplomas  with  an
\nendorsement  that the petitioners studied in an unrecognized
\ninstitution  will also go against the verdict of the Supreme
\nCourt.\t It  will also be against the basic principles\tthat
\nthe   training\tshould\tbe  had\t  only\tin  fully   equipped
\ninstitutions  which have been duly recognized.\tIt is likely
\nthat the candidates may attempt to misuse such certificates.
\nThe  petitioners  have no legal claim at all even  for\tsuch
\ncertificates i.e.  certificates with endorsements.”\n<\/p>\n
    Having  regard to the specific stand of the\t respondents
\nand  in the light of the Division Bench judgment of the High
\nCourt  in the case of the P.M.\tJoseph which was affirmed by
\nthis  Court in Civil Appeal Nos.  2914-16 of 1993 decided on
\nJune 15, 1993 (St.  John’s Teachers Training Institute case)
\naforementioned\tno mark sheet or diploma\/certificate can  be
\nissued.\t  Further two special leave petitions filed  against
\nthe  same judgment of the High Court (SLP No.  10110\/93\t and
\n9421\/93)  were also dismissed by this Court on 4.10.1993 and
\n19.7.1993  respectively.   It  is   not\t expected  that\t the
\nrespondents  would  issue   diplomas\/certificates  with\t the
\nendorsement to other candidates.  Assuming that in few cases
\nsuch mistakes are committed in issuing diplomas\/certificates
\nwith  the endorsement that the Teacher Training Institute in
\nwhich a student studied is not recognized by the Director of
\nSchool\tEducation,  Government of Tamil Nadu, such  mistakes
\ncannot be allowed to be repeated or perpetuated in the light
\nof the judicial pronouncements referred to above, which have
\nbecome\tfinal.\t Added\tto this, the  institutes  where\t the
\nPetitioners  underwent training which were de-recognized  by
\nvirtue\tof  judgment in P.M.  Joseph’s case were covered  by
\nthe  said judgment.  Hence the Petitioners cannot escape but
\nare  bound  by\tthe said judgment.  Their  seeking  writ  of
\nmandamus    for\t   issuance   of    mark    sheets    and\/or
\ndiplomas\/certificates  contrary\t to the said judgment,\tthat
\ntoo after a period of six years, could not be granted by the
\nHigh  Court  and rightly so in our opinion.  We are  of\t the
\nconsidered opinion that before teachers are allowed to teach
\ninnocent  children,  they  must\t  receive  appropriate\t and
\nadequate   training  in\t a  recognized\ttraining   institute
\nsatisfying  the\t prescribed  norms,  otherwise\tstandard  of
\neducation  and\tcareer of children will be jeopardized.\t  In
\nmost  civilized and advanced countries, job of a teacher  in
\nprimary\t school\t is  considered important  and\tcrucial\t one
\nbecause\t moulding of young minds begins in primary  schools.
\nAllowing  ill-trained teachers coming out of derecognised or
\nunrecognized  institutes  or  licensing them  to  teach\t the
\nchildren  of  impressionable  age,  contrary  to  the  norms
\nprescribed,  will  be  detrimental to the  interest  of\t the
\nnation itself in the sense that in the process of building a
\ngreat  nation,\tteachers and educational  institutions\talso
\nplay  vital  role.   In\t cases\t like  these,  interest\t  of
\nindividuals  cannot  be placed above or preferred to  larger
\npublic\tinterest.   Thus considering all  relevant  aspects,
\nPetitioners’  prayers  cannot be granted.  Hence we  do\t not
\nfind  any  substance in the second contention urged  by\t the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any
\nmerit  in  these petitions.  Hence these are  dismissed\t but
\nwithout costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 Author: S V Patil Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, Shivaraj V. Patil PETITIONER: L. MUTHUKUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/09\/2000 BENCH: M. Jagannadha Rao & Shivaraj […]<\/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-123417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nL. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-17T05:20:06+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T05:20:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3414,\"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\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\",\"name\":\"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-17T05:20:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-17T05:20:06+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T05:20:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000"},"wordCount":3414,"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\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000","name":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-17T05:20:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/l-muthukumar-and-another-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-28-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"L. Muthukumar And Another vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 28 September, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123417","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=123417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}