{"id":124691,"date":"1952-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952"},"modified":"2016-03-31T10:18:05","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T04:48:05","slug":"naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","title":{"rendered":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 106, \t\t 1952 SCR 395<\/div>\n
Author: M P Sastri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNARANJAN SIGH NATHAWAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB(and 13 other petitions).\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/01\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\n\nCITATION:\n 1952 AIR  106\t\t  1952 SCR  395\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1966 SC1404\t (8)\n D\t    1967 SC1797\t (4)\n E\t    1969 SC  43\t (9,10)\n R\t    1971 SC2197\t (7)\n R\t    1974 SC 510\t (3)\n R\t    1990 SC1480\t (99)\n\n\nACT:\n   Preventive  Detention--Order of detention  challenged  as\nillegal-Fresh\t     order\t superseding\t    previous\norder--Validity--Question  of bad faith--Habeas corpus\tpro-\nceeding--Legality of detention must be determined as at date\nof return.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In the absence of bad faith the detaining authority\t can\nsupersede  an  earlier\torder of detention  which  has\tbeen\nchallenged as defective on merely formal grounds and make  a\nfresh order wherever possible which is free from defects and\nduly  complies\twith  the requirements of the  law  in\tthat\nbehalf.\t  The  question\t of bad faith, if  raised,  must  be\ndecided with reference to the circumstances of each case.\n     In\t habeas\t corpus\t proceedings the Court\tis  to\thave\nregard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at\t the\ntime of the return and not with reference to the date of the\ninstitution of the proceedings.\n396\n      Basanta  Chandra Ghose v. King Emperor ([1945]  F.C.R.\n81)\tfollowed.  Naranjan  Singh v. The  State  of  Punjab\nunreported) explained. Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of\nPunjab<\/a> ([1952]\tS.C.R. 368) referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  JURISDICTION: Petitions (Nos. 513,  566,\t568,
\n570,  591,595, 596, 601, 616, 617, 623, 625, 631 and 632  of
\n1951) under article 32 of the Constitution for writs in\t the
\nnature\tof habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the  judg-
\nment.\n<\/p>\n
     Raghbir  Singh (amicus curiae) for the  petitioners  in
\nPetitions Nos. 513, 566, 568, 570. 595, 596, 609, 616,\t617,
\n623,625 and 631.\n<\/p>\n
    A.S.R.  Chari  (amicus  curiae) for\t the  petitioner  in
\nPetition No. 591.\n<\/p>\n
    Shiv Charan Singh (amicus curiae) for the petitioner  in
\nPetition No. 632.\n<\/p>\n
    S. M Sikri, Advocate-General of the Punjab (Jindra\tLal,
\nwith him) for the State of the Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
    1952.  January 25. The Judgment of the Court was  deliv-
\nered by
\nPATANJALI SASTRI C.J.–This is a petition under
\narticle 32 of the Constitution submitted through the  Super-
\nintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, for the issue of a writ  of
\nhabeas corpus for the release of the petitioner from  custo-
\ndy.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t 5th  July, 1950, the petitioner  was  arrested\t and
\ndetained under an order of the District Magistrate of Amrit-
\nsar in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section
\n3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and the grounds  of
\nhis detention  were  served on him as required by section  7
\nof  the Act on 10th July, 1950. The Act having been  amended
\nby  the\t Preventive Detention (Amendment)  Act,\t 1951,\twith
\neffect\tfrom  22nd February, 1951, a fresh order  No.  7853-
\nADSB,  dated  17th May, 1951, was issued  in  the  following
\nterms :-\n<\/p>\n
    “Whereas  the Governor of Punjab is satisfied  with\t re-
\nspect  to the person known as Naranjan Singh  Nathawan,\t s\/o
\nLehna Singh of village Chak Sikandar,
\n397<\/span>
\nP.S. Ramdas, Amritsar District, that with a view to prevent-
\ning him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the  security
\nof the State, it is necessary to make the   following order:\n<\/p>\n
    Now,  therefore. in exercise of the powers conferred  by
\nsub-section  (1) of section 3 and  section 4 of the  Preven-
\ntive  Detention\t Act, 1950, as\t amended by  the  Preventive
\nDetention (Amendment)\t  Act, 1951, the Governor of  Punjab
\nhereby\tdirects\t that the said Naranjan\t Singh\tNathawan  be
\ncommitted  to the custody of the Inspector-General of  Pris-
\nons, Punjab, and detained in any jail of the State till 31st
\nMarch,\t1952, subject to such conditions as to\tmaintenance,
\ndiscipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have
\nbeen  specified\t by  general order or as  contained  in\t the
\nPunjab Detenu Rules, 1950.”\n<\/p>\n
   This\t order\twas served on the petitioner  on  23rd\tMay,
\n1951, but no grounds in support of this order were served on
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner thereupon presented this petition for his
\nrelease\t contending  that the aforesaid\t order\twas  illegal
\ninasmuch as (1) the grounds of detention communicated to him
\non 10th July, 1950, were “quite vague, false and  imaginary”
\nand  (2) he was not furnished with the grounds on which\t the
\norder  dated  17th May, 1951, was based.  The  petition\t was
\nheard  ex-parte\t on  12th November, 1951,  when\t this  Court
\nissued a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause
\nwhy the petitioner should not be released, and it was posted
\nfor  final  hearing on 23rd November, 1951.  Meanwhile,\t the
\nState  Government  issued an order on 18th  November,  1951.
\nrevoking the order of detention dated 17th May, 1951, and on
\nthe same date the District Magistrate, Amritsar, issued\t yet
\nanother\t order\tfor the detention of  the  petitioner  under
\nsections  a and 4 of the amended Act; this last order  along
\nwith  the  grounds on which it was based was served  on\t the
\npetitioner on 19th November, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereupon the petitioner submitted a supplemental  peti-
\ntion  to this Court on 28th November, 1951, challenging\t the
\nvalidity of the last order on the ground
\n398<\/span>
\nthat  “it  was\tonly a device to defeat\t the  habeas  corpus
\npetition of the petitioner in which a rule had already\tbeen
\nissued\t, and he put forward an additional ground of  attack
\non  the legality of the earlier order dated 17th may,  1951,
\nnamely, that it fixed the term of detention till 31st March,
\n1952, before obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board  as
\nrequired  by section 11 of the amended Act. This ground\t was
\nevidently based on the view expressed by this Court that the
\nspecification  of  the period of detention  in\tthe  initial
\norder of detention under section 3 of the amended Act before
\nobtaining  the\topinion of the Advisory Board  rendered\t the
\norder illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the return to the rule showing cause filed on behalf
\nof the respondent, the Under Secretary (Home) to the Govern-
\nment  explained the circumstances which led to the issue  of
\nthe  fresh  order of detention dated  18th  November,  1951.
\nAfter stating that the petitioner’s case was referred to and
\nconsidered by the Advisory Board constituted under section 8
\nof the amended Act and that the Board reported on 30th\tMay,
\n1951,  that there was sufficient cause for the detention  of
\nthe petitioner, the affidavit proceeded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “That  the Government was advised that the orders\tmade
\nunder section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act’, 1950,  as
\namended\t by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act,  1951,
\nbut carried out in the form of orders under section 3 of the
\nsaid Act, should be followed by grounds of detention and, as
\nthis  had not been done in most cases, the  detentions\twere
\nlikely to be called in question. The Government was  further
\nadvised\t there\twere  other technical  defects\twhich  might
\nrender\tthe detention of various detenus untenable. In\tview
\nof this, the Government decided that the cases of all  dete-
\nnus  should  be reviewed by the\t District  Magistrates\tcon-
\ncerned.\t Accordingly, the Punjab Government  instructed\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrates  to review the cases and\tapply  their
\nminds  afresh and emphasised that there must exist  rational
\ngrounds\t with the detaining authority to justify the  deten-
\ntion  of a person and they were asked to report\t clearly  in
\neach case if the District
\n399<\/span>
\nMagistrate concerned wanted the detenus to be detained.\t The
\nPunjab Government also reviewed some cases. Accordingly\t all
\ncases including the case of the petitioner     were reviewed
\nand in this case the District Magistrate was again satisfied
\nthat  it  was necessary that the detenu be detained  with  a
\nview  to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial  to
\nthe  security  of the State and the  maintenance  of  public
\norder.” And it concluded by stating “that the petitioner  is
\ndetained  now under the orders of the  District\t Magistrate,
\nAmritsar.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  original and supplementary petitions came  on  in
\ndue  course for hearing before Fazl Ali and Vivian Bose\t JJ.
\non  17th December, 1951, when reliance was placed on  behalf
\nof t he petitioner on certain observations in an  unreported
\ndecision of this Court in Petition No. 334 of 1951 (Naranjan
\nSingh  v.  The State of Punjab) and it was claimed  that  in
\nview of those observations and of the provisions of Part III
\nof the Constitution, the decision in Basant Chandra Ghose v.
\nKing  Emperor(1),  on which the respondent  relied.  was  no
\nlonger good law. The learned Judges thought that the  matter
\nshould\tbe considered by a Constitution bench and  the\tcase
\nwas accordingly placed before us.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twill be seen from the affidavit filed on  behalf  of
\nthe  respondent that the case of the petitioner, along\twith
\nhis representation against the detention order of 17th\tMay,
\n1951, was placed before the Advisory Board for its consider-
\nation, and the Board reported on 30th May, 1951, that in its
\nopinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of\t the
\npetitioner.  It is said that, on the basis of  that  report,
\nthe  Government\t decided that the petitioner should  be\t de-
\ntained\ttill 31st March, 1952, but while a  properly  framed
\norder under section 11 should “confirm” the detention  order
\nand  “continue”\t the detention for a specified\tperiod,\t the
\norder of 17th May, 1951, was issued under a  misapprehension
\nin  the\t form  of an initial order under section  3  of\t the
\namended Act. on the same grounds as before without any fresh
\ncommunication thereof to the petitioner.  To
\n(1) [1945] F.C.R. 31.\n<\/p>\n
52<\/span>
\n400<\/span><\/p>\n
avoid arguments based on possible defects of a technical and
\nformal character, the said order was revoked   under section
\n13, and on a review of the case by the District\t Magistrate,
\na  fresh  order of detention was issued under section  3  on
\n18th  November,\t 1951,\tand this was followed  by  a  formal
\ncommunication  of the same grounds as before as there  could
\nbe  no fresh grounds, the petitioner having throughout\tbeen
\nunder detention.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis contended by the Advocate-General of\t the  Punjab
\nthat  the  decision reported in [1945] F.C.R.  81  is  clear
\nauthority in support of the validity of the aforesaid order.
\nOn essentially similar facts the court laid down two  propo-
\nsitions\t both of which have application here. (1)  Where  an
\nearlier\t order\tof detention is defective merely  on  formal
\ngrounds,  there\t is nothing to preclude a  proper  order  of
\ndetention  being  based on the\tpre-existing  grounds  them-
\nselves, especially in cases in which the sufficiency of\t the
\ngrounds\t is not examinable by the courts, and (2) if at\t any
\ntime  before the court directs the release of the detenu,  a
\nvalid  order directing his detention is produced, the  court
\ncannot direct his release merely on the ground that at\tsome
\nprior  stage  there was no valid cause\tfor  detention.\t The
\nquestion is not whether the later order validates the earli-
\ner  detention  but whether in the face of  the\tlater  valid
\norder  the court can direct the release of  the\t petitioner.
\nThe  learned  Judges  point out that the  analogy  of  civil
\nproceedings  in which the rights of parties have  ordinarily
\nto  be ascertained as on the date of the institution of\t the
\nproceedings has no application to proceedings in the  nature
\nof  habeas corpus where the court is concerned\tsolely\twith
\nthe  question  whether the applicant is being  lawfully\t de-
\ntained or not.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tpetitioner’s learned counsel conceded that he  could
\nnot challenge the correctness of the second proposition, but
\ntook exception to the first as being no longer tenable after
\nthe Indian Constitution came into force.  It was urged\tthat
\narticle\t 22 lays down the procedure to be followed in  cases
\nof  preventive\tdetention  and the said\t procedure  must  be
\nstrictly observed
\n401<\/span>
\nas  the only prospect of release by a court must be  on\t the
\nbasis  of technical or formal defects, a long line of  deci-
\nsions  having  held  that the scope of\tjudicial  review  in
\nmatters of preventive detention is practically limited to an
\nenquiry as to whether there has been strict compliance\twith
\nthe  requirements of the law. This is undoubtedly  true\t and
\nthis  Court had occasion in the recent case of Makhan  Singh
\nTarsikka  v.  The  State  of Punjab  (Petition\tNo.<\/a>  308  of
\n1951)(1) to observe “it cannot too often be emphasised\tthat
\nbefore\ta  person is deprived of his  personal\tliberty\t the
\nprocedure  established by law must be strictly followed\t and
\nmust not be departed from to the disadvantage of the  person
\naffected”.   This proposition, however, applied\t with  equal
\nforce to cases of preventive detention before the  commence-
\nment  of the Constitution, and it is difficult to  see\twhat
\ndifference the Constitution makes in regard to the position.
\nIndeed,\t the position is now made more clear by the  express
\nprovisions  of section 13 of the Act which provides  that  a
\ndetention  order may at any time be revoked or modified\t and
\nthat  such  revocation shall not bar the making of  a  fresh
\ndetention  order  under section 3 against the  same  person.
\nOnce  it is conceded that in habeas corpus  proceedings\t the
\ncourt is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of\t the
\ndetention  at the time of the return and not with  reference
\nto  the\t date of the institution of the\t proceeding,  it  is
\ndifficult  to  hold, in the absence of proof of\t bad  faith,
\nthat  the  detaining authority cannot supersede\t an  earlier
\norder  of detention challenged as illegal and make  a  fresh
\norder wherever possible which is free from defects and\tduly
\ncomplies with the requirements of the law in that behalf.
\n    As regards the observations in Naranjan Singh’s case, we
\ndo  not understand them as laying down any general  proposi-
\ntion to the effect that no fresh order of detention could be
\nmade  when  once a petition challenging the validity  of  an
\nearlier\t order has been filed in court. The  learned  Judges
\nappear to have inferred from the facts of that case that the
\nlater order was
\n(1) Since reported as [1952] S.C.R. 368.\n<\/p>\n
402<\/span><\/p>\n
not made bona fide on being satisfied that the\tpetitioner’s
\ndetention  was\t still necessary but it was   “obviously  to
\ndefeat the present petition”. The question of bad faith,  if
\nraised would certainly have to be decided with reference  to
\nthe circumstances of each case, but the observations in\t one
\ncase cannot be regarded as a precedent in dealing with other
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
   We  accordingly remit the case for further hearing.\tThis
\norder  will govern the other petitions where the same  ques-
\ntion was raised.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t   Petitions remitted.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent: P.A. Mehta.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1952 AIR 106, 1952 SCR 395 Author: M P Sastri Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara PETITIONER: NARANJAN SIGH NATHAWAN Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE […]<\/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-124691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNaranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - 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\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\"},\"wordCount\":2149,\"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\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\",\"name\":\"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - 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\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952","datePublished":"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952"},"wordCount":2149,"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\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952","name":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other ... on 25 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T04:48:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranjan-sigh-nathawan-vs-the-state-of-punjaband-13-other-on-25-january-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naranjan Sigh Nathawan vs The State Of Punjab(And 13 Other … on 25 January, 1952"}]},{"@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\/124691","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=124691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}