{"id":126262,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-11T00:08:40","modified_gmt":"2015-05-10T18:38:40","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, S.B. Deshmukh<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n\n\n\n              WRIT PETITION NO.1299 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    Date of decision: 9th July, 2008.\n\n    For approval and signature.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO.\n\n    THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.B. DESHMUKH.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1.   Whether Reporters of Local Papers              }\n         may be allowed to see the judgment?            }\n\n    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?         }\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    3.    Whether Their Lordships wish to see\n         the fair copy of the judgment?                 }\n\n    4.\n                    \n         Whether this case involves a substantial\n         question of law as to the interpretation\n                                                        }\n                                                        }\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950 or          }\n                   \n         any Order made thereunder?                     }\n\n    5.    Whether it is to be circulated to the         }\n         Civil Judges?                                  }\n\n    6.    Whether the case involves an important        }\n      \n\n\n         question of law and whether a copy of          }\n         the judgment should be sent to Mumbai,         }\n   \n\n\n\n         Nagpur and Panaji offices?                     }\n\n\n\n\n\n        [ S.U.Tupe ]\n    Personal Assistant to\n    the Honourable Judge.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::\n                                  1\n\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n              WRIT PETITION NO.1299 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    Gulabbai w\/o Gopaldas Gujrati,\n    Age: 70 years, Occupation : Nil,\n    R\/o. C\/o. Girish Gopaldas Gujrati,\n    besides Prashant Classes,\n    Panhaleshwar Galli, Chopda,\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n    Tq. Chopda, District Jalgaon.\n                                .... PETITIONER\n\n                  VERSUS\n\n    1. Union of India,\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n       through the Secretary,\n       Ministry of Home Affairs,\n                   \n       Government of India, New Delhi.\n\n    2. The State of Maharashtra,\n       Through its Secretary,\n                  \n       General Administration Department,\n       Freedom Fighters Cell,\n       Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n\n    3. The Collector, Jalgaon,\n       District Jalgaon.\n      \n\n\n                                     ....   RESPONDENTS\n   \n\n\n\n                           ...\n    Shri.N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner.\n    Shri.Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for\n    Union of India.\n    Shri.S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondents - State.\n\n\n\n\n\n                           ...\n\n                       CORAM:        F.I. REBELLO, AND\n                                     S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                       DATE :        9TH JULY, 2008.\n\n\n\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT: ( PER : F.I. REBELLO, J.)\n\n\n    .     Rule, heard forthwith.\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>\n                                                   2<\/span>\n\n\n    2.        The        petitioner             is the widow         of     Gopaldas\n\n    Kanhyalal        Gujrati.               The late Gopaldas              Kanhyalal\n\n    Gujrati         had         participated                in     the           Indian\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                           \n    Independence              Movement          and was sentenced for                six\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n<\/pre>\n
    months by Dharangaon Magistrate on 28-08-1942.                                     He<\/p>\n
    was released on 12-01-1943 unconditionally, as per<\/p>\n
    the     Government                   Resolution         bearing         Hd       No.<\/p>\n
    6528\/4(21156)              dated       09-01-1943.           The husband           of<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner               is      receiving        Freedom        Fighters<\/p>\n
    Pension from the Government of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
    3.        It     is\n                               \n                               the        petitioner's           case      that      the\n\n    Government           of     India           also     grants      a      pension.\n                              \n    Accordingly,              the        petitioner's late           husband         had\n\n    applied        for        Freedom           Fighters Pension           from      the\n\n    Central        Government.               The       same was      rejected          on\n      \n\n\n    04-12-1974            on        the     ground        that       the         actual\n   \n\n\n\n    imprisonment              of the husband of the petitioner was\n\n    less    than         six months.              A fresh     application            was\n\n\n\n\n\n    submitted        on        31-12-1982             supported      by     required\n\n    documents.            In        the meantime, the husband of                     the\n\n    petitioner           expired.               After that, the           petitioner\n\n<\/pre>\n
    pursuing the matter and has submitted all required<\/p>\n
    documents on 27-07-2007.                      In spite of receiving of<\/p>\n
    the     application,                  the      Central       Government          has<\/p>\n
    neither        granted pension nor communicated anything<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    to the petitioner.             Under these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
    present petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        The    Sanctioning Authority for the                         pension<\/p>\n
    is    the   Union           of India     through          the        Secretary,<\/p>\n
    Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New<\/p>\n
    Delhi.      The        competent authority in the State                           of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra to send the proposal of the petitioner<\/p>\n
    to    respondent            No.1 is the Secretary               of         General<\/p>\n
    Administration          Department, Freedom Fighters Cell,<\/p>\n
    Mantralaya,       Mumbai.          Respondent             No.    3         is     the<\/p>\n
    Collector,<\/p>\n
                     Jalgaon, is also authority to                         forward<\/p>\n
    necessary       information         to       the     State           and        Union<\/p>\n
    Government.\n<\/p>\n
    5.        According          to the petitioner, on the                      death<\/p>\n
    of    her   husband on 29-09-1996, she had                            persuaded<\/p>\n
    the    matter with the Central Government.                            Her case<\/p>\n
    was    recommended           by    the       President          of     District<\/p>\n
    Facilitation          Committee Jalgaon to the                   Government<\/p>\n
    of    Maharashtra           for    grant       of     Freedom          Fighters<\/p>\n
    Pension         from         the    Central          Government.                  The<\/p>\n
    Collector of Jalgaon, according to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
    submitted       the         proposal     to         the    Government              of<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra            on      27-06-2003.                Various               other<\/p>\n
    dignitaries       also        supported        the         claim           of     the<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner.         Several representations were made by<\/p>\n
    the    petitioner from time to time.                It is set            out<\/p>\n
    that late husband of the petitioner had not made a<\/p>\n
    request      nor was his sentence curtailed on account<\/p>\n
    of any such request.                The curtailment was purely a<\/p>\n
    decision     of the then Government.               It is submitted<\/p>\n
    that     considering          law     declared   by      the      Supreme<\/p>\n
    Court, the petitioner would be entitled to Freedom<\/p>\n
    Fighters Pension granted by the Central Government<\/p>\n
    and    rejection         of    the      petitioner’s        case         is,<\/p>\n
    therefore, arbitrary and consequently liable to be<\/p>\n
    set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        Reply         has    been     filed    on        behalf          of<\/p>\n
    respondent        No.     1 by Manmohan Banarasi Das, Under<\/p>\n
    Secretary     in        the    Freedom     Fighter       Division          of<\/p>\n
    Ministry     of     Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan,                      New<\/p>\n
    Delhi.       It is set out in the affidavit, based                         on<\/p>\n
    information        gathered from the office record, that<\/p>\n
    Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 was<\/p>\n
    introduced        by the Government of India during                      the<\/p>\n
    Silver Jubilee Year of the Independence.                        That the<\/p>\n
    necessary          condition            for      considering             the<\/p>\n
    application        of     any individual is that the                 State<\/p>\n
    Government        should recommend the individual’s case<\/p>\n
    to     the     Central               Government.         Only        those<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
    applications           which have been duly recommended                        by<\/p>\n
    the State Government are considered by the Central<\/p>\n
    Government.            In        the     petitioner’s case,           it     was<\/p>\n
    informed         that        it        was   not     a   fit    case         for<\/p>\n
    recommendation              in    terms of communication of                  the<\/p>\n
    Collector of Jalgaon, on 03-06-1986.                         Even on this<\/p>\n
    count,     it is submitted that the petitioner is not<\/p>\n
    entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension introduced by<\/p>\n
    the     Government           of India.           Reliance is placed            on<\/p>\n
    the     judgment of the Supreme Court in the case                              of<\/p>\n
    Manoharlal        Azad       vs.        Union of India and            others,<\/p>\n
    {(2002)     10<\/p>\n
                          SCC 568},
\n                              568} to contend that only                      those<\/p>\n
    individual            who        have        undergone       the        actual<\/p>\n
    imprisonment          of     six months is entitled to                    claim<\/p>\n
    the     Freedom        Fighters Pension and              therefore,            on<\/p>\n
    this     count,        the       petitioner’s         husband       was      not<\/p>\n
    entitled        for     the Freedom Fighters Pension.                        The<\/p>\n
    claim     of the petitioner’s husband was rejected on<\/p>\n
    the     ground that actual imprisonment was less than<\/p>\n
    six     months.        As the petitioner’s husband was                       not<\/p>\n
    eligible        for the said pension, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
    not right to claim it.                   Consequently, the petition<\/p>\n
    be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        The     issue, therefore, for consideration is<\/p>\n
    whether     the        petitioner’s              late husband,        who      is<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    admittedly           a     freedom       fighter and who          had    been<\/p>\n
    sentenced        to        six     months imprisonment,           but      had<\/p>\n
    suffered lesser imprisonment on account of release<\/p>\n
    unconditionally             in terms of Government Resolution<\/p>\n
    dated     09-01-1943,             was     entitled to       the     Freedom<\/p>\n
    Fighters Pension granted by respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
    8.        The            relevant       rule   of     clause       (a)       of<\/p>\n
    Paragraph        –        4 of the “Freedom Fighters’               Pension<\/p>\n
    Scheme,        1972”        extended to all         freedom       fighters<\/p>\n
    from 01-01-1980 reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
              “(a) A person who had suffered a minimum
\n              imprisonment of six months in the mainland
\n              jails before independence. However, ex-INA
\n              personnel will be eligible for pension if
\n              the imprisonment detention suffered by them
\n              was outside India.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         We     may, therefore, first consider the case<\/p>\n
    law as relied upon by the petitioner in support of<\/p>\n
    the      contention              that    the      Supreme    Court         has<\/p>\n
    considered           the     said       clause.       The    first       such<\/p>\n
    judgment        is        in the case of Surja and others                  vs.<\/p>\n
    Union     of India and<\/a> another, {1992 (1) Mah.LR 388}<\/p>\n
    =    (1992 SC 777).              Learned Supreme Court, in               that<\/p>\n
    matter,    has           been     pleased to hold on          the       facts<\/p>\n
    there,    that           the petitioners had participated                    in<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    Arya     Samaj        movement (who were also               entitled          to<\/p>\n
    pension       under      Swatantrata Sainik Samman                   Pension<\/p>\n
    Scheme) and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment<\/p>\n
    for     six     months.         While       they    were       undergoing<\/p>\n
    sentence,        without        praying for any           remission,           a<\/p>\n
    general       amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on<\/p>\n
    his     birthday and the sentence was reduced and the<\/p>\n
    petitioners were set free.                  The Court held that it<\/p>\n
    was     a fact that the petitioners were sentenced to<\/p>\n
    six      months        imprisonment         and     the       fact        that<\/p>\n
    remission        was granted, would not take away                       their<\/p>\n
    right to earn pension.\n<\/p>\n
                             ig         This judgment was followed\n\n    in     the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs.\n                           \n    Union     of     India and others<\/a> (1993 AIR                   SCW       2508).\n\n    The     Court        reiterated view taken in the                  case       of\n\n    Surja     (Supra).        In other words, if the period                       of\n      \n\n\n    six     months sentence was curtailed, not on account\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    of any act of seeking remission by the person, but<\/p>\n
    on      account         of   the        State       or        Authorities<\/p>\n
    unilaterally          granting remission or curtailing the<\/p>\n
    period     of        sentence    would        not    disentitle             the<\/p>\n
    applicant from getting pension.\n<\/p>\n
    9.       Learned         counsel         on        behalf          of       the<\/p>\n
    respondents however has drawn our attention to the<\/p>\n
    judgment        of     the   Supreme Court, in the                 case       of<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
    Union     of        India and others vs.              Manohar Lal           Azad<\/p>\n
    and<\/a>     another (Supra).             On the facts there, it                   was<\/p>\n
    submitted           before    the learned Supreme Court                     that<\/p>\n
    the      applicant           for     pension         did      not        fulfil<\/p>\n
    eligibility           criteria.       On behalf of            respondents,<\/p>\n
    reliance        was       placed     on the         judgment       of     Surja<\/p>\n
    (Supra).            The     Supreme Court posed to itself                     the<\/p>\n
    question        as        to whether the first             respondent           is<\/p>\n
    entitled        to pension under Samman Pension                        Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    The      Court        noted        from       the    scheme      that         the<\/p>\n
    eligibility           criteria       to earn pension under                  that<\/p>\n
    scheme<\/p>\n
               is that one should be Freedom Fighter                              and<\/p>\n
    suffering            imprisonment.            Freedom         Fighter           is<\/p>\n
    defined        in     Clause (a) of Para.              4 of the          Scheme<\/p>\n
    and     on perusal of that clause, the Supreme                            Court<\/p>\n
    observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
              “A   perusal of this     clause makes    it
\n              abundantly clear that what is germane is
\n              suffering a minimum imprisonment of six<\/p>\n
              months in the mainland before independence
\n              but not merely suffering an order awarding
\n              imprisonment of six months by a competent
\n              court.   Explanation 2 to Para 4, however,
\n              treats the period of normal remission up to
\n              one month as part of actual imprisonment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .         After considering the observations in Surja<\/p>\n
    (Supra),        the Court proceed to observe that it was<\/p>\n
    clear     that on the peculiar facts of that case, it<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
    was     held     that    each of       the    petitioners          there,<\/p>\n
    satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of<\/p>\n
    pension.         The Court further proceeded to                 observe<\/p>\n
    as under :\n<\/p>\n
             “We are unable to read that judgment as
\n             laying down that where a person has been<\/p>\n
             sentenced to imprisonment for six months or
\n             more but if he comes out within a month or
\n             so, for whatever reason, without serving
\n             his sentence, he will still be a freedom
\n             fighter within the meaning of the Scheme
\n             and eligible for the samman pension.      To<\/p>\n
             say so, in our opinion, would amount to
\n             giving a go-by to the definition of the
\n             expression<\/p>\n
                           “freedom      fighter”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             substituting new eligibility criteria for
\n                                                      and<\/p>\n
             the Scheme enlarging its scope which is not
\n             only impermissible but also contrary to the<\/p>\n
             spirit of the Scheme framed on the basis of
\n             the material and keeping in mind the class
\n             of the political sufferers who would be the
\n             beneficiaries   of the     Samman    Pension
\n             Scheme.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    .        Therefore,       considering the judgment in the<\/p>\n
    case     of     Manoharlal      Azad    (Supra),       the      law      as<\/p>\n
    declared        would    require    the      applicant        to     have<\/p>\n
    suffered six months actual imprisonment subject to<\/p>\n
    the     proviso whereby normal remission of one month<\/p>\n
    is considered as a part of actual imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
    10.      Admittedly,       on    the facts in          the      instant<\/p>\n
    case,     the     late    husband of         the   petitioner          was<\/p>\n
    sentenced        on 28-08-1942.        In the ordinary course,<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
    he would have been released on 27-02-1943.                       He was<\/p>\n
    however        released       on 12-01-1943.      Even if we          add<\/p>\n
    one     month as a remission, then the period of                      six<\/p>\n
    months        would    have     expired on     11-02-1943.             The<\/p>\n
    husband        of the petitioner, therefore, in terms of<\/p>\n
    the     judgment in the case of Manohar Lal                  (Supra),<\/p>\n
    had     not     undergone       the actual     sentence         of     six<\/p>\n
    months.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       On     behalf       of petitioner, learned           counsel<\/p>\n
    submits        that    the judgment in the case            of        Surja<\/p>\n
    (Supra)<\/p>\n
                   and Mukund Lal (Supra) are of co-ordinate<\/p>\n
    Benches        and     another co-ordinate Bench could                not<\/p>\n
    have     taken        a view which is contrary to the                 view<\/p>\n
    taken     in     the     judgment    in    the    case     of        Surja<\/p>\n
    (Supra),        which was followed in the case of Mukund<\/p>\n
    Lal     (Supra).         It    is   true     as   noted      by        the<\/p>\n
    Constitution          Bench of the Apex Court in Union                  of<\/p>\n
    India    vs.         Raghubir Singh<\/a> (dead) by L.Rs.                  (AIR<\/p>\n
    1989    SC 1933), wherein the Supreme Court observed<\/p>\n
    as under :\n<\/p>\n
             “A pronouncement of law by a Division Bench
\n             of the Supreme Court is binding on a
\n             Division Bench or a smaller same number of
\n             judges and in order that said decision be
\n             binding, it is not necessary that it should
\n             be a decision rendered by the Full Court or
\n             a Constitution Bench of the Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    .         We have considered the said submission.                          In<\/p>\n
    the    first        instance,       all the       judgments       are      of<\/p>\n
    Co-ordinate         Benches of two Judges.             When there be<\/p>\n
    so conflicting judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of<\/p>\n
    the    Supreme        Court,     as pointed out by            the       Full<\/p>\n
    Bench of the Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel<\/p>\n
    vs.Union       of India and others ( 1994 Mh.L.J.1668),<\/p>\n
    it     is open to the Court to consider the                     judgment<\/p>\n
    which in its opinion is the better in point of law<\/p>\n
    irrespective<\/p>\n
    pronounced.<\/p>\n
\n                          of\n\n                         The\n                            ig     when\n\n                                  fact,\n                                                the\n\n                                             however,\n                                                        judgments\n\n                                                           remains\n                                                                            were\n\n                                                                            that\n                          \n    insofar        as     case     of      Manohar      Lal    (Supra)         is\n\n    concerned,          the      Supreme        Court    considered          the\n\n    judgment in the case of Surja (Supra).                      It is true\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    that case of Mukund Lal (Supra) was not considered<\/p>\n
    but    if     we     peruse the judgment in            the      case       of<\/p>\n
    Mukund      Lal (Supra), the Court excepted the                      ratio<\/p>\n
    of the judgment in the case of Surja (Supra).                            The<\/p>\n
    other aspect of the matter is that the judgment in<\/p>\n
    the    case     of     Surja (Supra)          was    directly          under<\/p>\n
    consideration         by the Supreme Court in               Manoharlal<\/p>\n
    Azad     (Supra).          The Supreme Court noted that                  the<\/p>\n
    judgment       in     Surja     (Supra) was rendered              on     the<\/p>\n
    peculiar       facts of that case and then declared the<\/p>\n
    position       of     law,     that an       applicant      must        have<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
    actually      suffered          a minimum imprisonment of                     six<\/p>\n
    months less the remission period of one month.                                 On<\/p>\n
    being sentenced and suffering imprisonment, if the<\/p>\n
    sentence      was        curtailed        not on        account       of      the<\/p>\n
    applicant’s request but by the State, it would not<\/p>\n
    be     sentence undergone for six months.                       It is         not<\/p>\n
    possible      for        us,        therefore,     to     take       a        view<\/p>\n
    different         than        the     view taken in        the       case      of<\/p>\n
    Manohar Lal Azad (Supra) considering that the case<\/p>\n
    of     Surja (Supra) was in issue and considered                              and<\/p>\n
    explained in Manohar Lal Azad (Supra).                          The law as<\/p>\n
    it     now   stands
\n                              ig  would be the law as            declared          in<\/p>\n
    Manohar      Lal     (Supra)           and that would be            the       law<\/p>\n
    binding      on     the courts under Article 141                      of      the<\/p>\n
    Consitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    12.       Considering           the above, as the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
    husband      had     not        suffered         actual      six         months<\/p>\n
    imprisonment,            it    is      not    possible         for       us     to<\/p>\n
    entertain         with        the decision taken by             respondent<\/p>\n
    No.1     rejecting            the claim of the           petitioner           and<\/p>\n
    consequently,            Rule discharged.          There shall be no<\/p>\n
    order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    [ S.B. DESHMUKH, J.]                         [ F.I. REBELLO, J.]<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>
\n                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
    sut\/u\/JULY08\/wp1299.08<\/p>\n
                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:56 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 Bench: F.I. Rebello, S.B. Deshmukh 1 WRIT PETITION NO.1299 OF 2008 Date of decision: 9th July, 2008. For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.B. DESHMUKH. 1. Whether Reporters of Local […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126262","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-10T18:38:40+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\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T18:38:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1990,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-10T18:38:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-10T18:38:40+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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T18:38:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008"},"wordCount":1990,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-10T18:38:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-union-of-india-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Union Of India on 9 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/126262","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=126262"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126262\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126262"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126262"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126262"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}