{"id":130455,"date":"2003-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003"},"modified":"2018-09-24T04:18:17","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T22:48:17","slug":"v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 28\/08\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.K. MISRA\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\n\nW.P.No.19370 of 1999\n\n\nV.Radhakrishnan                                        ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\nrep. by its Chief Secretary\n to Government,\nPublic (Special-A) Department,\nFort St.George,\nChennai-600 009.\n\n2. The High Court of Judicature,\nrep. by its Registrar,\nChennai-600 104.                                ..  Respondents\n\n\n                Petition under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, for the reasons as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  K.Chandru, S.C.,\n                for Mr.Md.Ibrahim Ali\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.  Mr.S.T.S.Murthy, Spl.G.P.\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.\n<\/p>\n
                The petitioner has come forward with the prsent Writ Petition,
\nchallenging the order of compulsory retirement  passed  in  G.O.Ms.No.64  Home
\n(Courts-IA)  Department,  dated  21-01-1999 as well as the subsequent order in
\nletter No.15741\/Courts-IA\/99 dated 10-11-1999.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was  working
\nas District  Munsif-cum-Judicial  Magistrate  of II Class, Neyveli.  He joined
\nthe  services  of  the  Judiciary  as  Judicial  II  Class  Magistrate   under
\nG.O.Ms.No.918 Home  dated 21-4-1981.  Previously, he was employed as Assistant
\nin the Prohibition and Excise Department in the state of Tamil Nadu.   He  was
\nposted as  Judicial  Second Class Magistrate at Vilathikulam on 4-3-1982.  His
\ndate of birth is 30-7-1948.  So, in the second half of 1998, the case  of  the
\npetitioner  was  ripe  for review under FR 56(2) by the Review Committee as he
\nwas 50 years at that point of time.  The petitioner’s records were  considered
\nby  the Review Committee along with certain other officers and it was resolved
\nnot to recommend the petitioner for continuance in service beyond the  age  of
\n50  years  and that in the public interest, he should be compulsorily retired.
\nThe recommendation of the Review Committee was placed before  the  Full  Court
\nwhich  also  approved  the  minutes  of the Review Committee, recommending the
\ncompulsory retirement of the petitioner.  Based on the recommendation  of  the
\nFull Court, the  Government  issued  G.O.  Ms.No.64, dated 21-1-1999.  Against
\nwhich, the petitioner preferred a review and as there  was  no  provision  for
\nreview, the same was also rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Mr.K.Chandru,  learned  Senior  counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner contended that  during  the  period  of  his  service  as  Judicial
\nOfficer,  the  petitioner  had  unblemished  record  of  service except on one
\noccasion where a remark came to be made in the year 1994 to the effect that he
\nmust improve his performance; that even the said remark  was  communicated  to
\nthe  petitioner  only on 11-9-1996; that on 9-6-1998 another communication was
\nserved on him where again it was mentioned “…  poor disposal’, for  lack  of
\nprocedural  laws and lack of aptitude of hard work”; and that at that point of
\ntime, as the Court  was  newly  set  up,  the  petitioner  did  not  have  the
\nassistance of the Stenotypist.  According to the petitioner, the then District
\nJudge,  Cuddalore  who  was  presiding  over the Court in the year 1996-97 was
\nprejudiced against him and therefore, the said remarks came to be  made.    It
\nwas  contended  that as there was no indication in the communication served on
\nhim, within which time, he should submit his reply, he could  not  respond  to
\nthe said  communication.   It is, therefore, contended that barring the above,
\nwhen the performance is considered, the disposal of the cases was substantial,
\nexcept when he came to be  posted  as  District  Munsif.    According  to  the
\npetitioner,  all  along  he  was  manning  only  Criminal  Courts  as Judicial
\nMagistrate and therefore, when he came to be  posted  as  District  Munsif  to
\nhandle  the  civil cases, due to initial hurdles though the disposals were not
\nappreciable,  that  cannot  be  a  ground  for  taking  the  extreme  step  of
\ncompulsorily retiring  him  from  the  service.    The  learned Senior counsel
\ncontended that when there were no adverse remarks against the  petitioner  and
\nsince  the  lack  of  performance  was  the  only  allegation against him, the
\npetitioner ought not to have been compulsorily retired as  it  caused  extreme
\nhardship to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   As  against the above submissions, learned Spl.Government
\nPleader appearing on behalf of the  respondents  after  placing  the  personal
\nrecord  of the petitioner before us, contended that the overall performance of
\nthe petitioner was very poor, that there  were  adverse  entries  against  the
\npetitioner,  some of which were also communicated to the petitioner and in the
\ncircumstances, as the continuation of the  petitioner  in  service  beyond  50
\nyears  was  found  to  be not in public interest, the respondents had no other
\noption except to compulsorily retire him from service.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  We had the advantage  of  perusing  the  personal  records
\nfiles of  the  petitioner.    Initially  up  to  the middle of 1995, there was
\nnothing against the petitioner.  Thereafter, there was a  gradual  decline  in
\nthe performance of the petitioner.  Up to May 1995, the petitioner was working
\nas Judicial  Magistrate,  Rasipuram.    On and from 1-6-1995, he was posted as
\nDistrict Munsif, Vridhachalam.  Thereafter, it was found that  the  petitioner
\nwas not  able  to  give satisfactory disposals on the civil side.  In fact, in
\nthe performance appraisal for  the  period  1-1-1996  to  31-3-1996  and  from
\n1-4-1996  to  13-8-1996,  it was found out that there was sharp decline in his
\nperformance and a remark came to be made in his confidential  record  that  he
\nshould improve  his  overall  performance.  That was an assessment made by the
\nHonourable Judge of this  Court  who  had  the  opportunity  to  appraise  his
\nperformance.   Even  his performance between 28-8-1996 to 31-12-1996 was found
\nto be ‘poor in all respects’ by the Unit Head, which was also endorsed by  the
\nconcerned Portfolio  Judge.    Therefore,  the  petitioner  was issued with an
\nOfficial Memorandum dated 26-5-1998 pointing out that his  disposal  was  poor
\nand  the  same was due to lack of knowledge of procedural laws and also due to
\nlack of aptitude for hard work.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  Though the petitioner acknowledged the  office  memorandum
\non 15-6 -1998, he had no explanation to offer.  Again when his performance was
\nappraised  between  1-1-1997  and 6-4-1997, his industry and aptitude for hard
\nwork was found to be ‘poor’  by  the  Unit  Head  as  well  as  the  concerned
\nPortfolio Judge.    Such  remarks  were  based  on the statistics available on
\nrecord.  The same position  continued  even  during  the  period  7-4-1997  to
\n26-5-1997.   Even  during  the  period  2-6-1997  to  31-12-1997  as  Judicial
\nMagistrate-cum-District Munsif, Neyveli, the petitioner was disposing of at an
\naverage only two suits per month which was found to be ‘not  satisfactory’  at
\nall.   Further  in respect of his honesty, integrity and impartiality also, it
\nwas found to be ‘very poor’ apart from his  promptitude  in  disposal  of  the
\ncases  not  having  improved  in  the  report  covering the period 1-1-1998 to
\n18-2-1998.  Even during the period 19-2-1998 and 31-12-1998, the same position
\ncontinued and the remark in the record was ‘poor’  in  performance  and  ‘very
\npoor’ as regards his honesty, integrity and impartiality, and overall view was
\nalso noted  as ‘not satisfactory’.  When such were the adverse entries made in
\nthe personal confidential record of the petitioner, the Review Committee while
\nconsidering the same, thought it fit not to continue him in service beyond  50
\nyears.   As  the  Full Court was also convinced with the recommendation of the
\nReview Committee, the impugned order  of  compulsory  retirement  came  to  be
\npassed.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   With  the  above background in regard to the petitioner’s
\nservice, when the principles relating to compulsory  retirement  of  a  public
\nservant,  as  laid  down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various decisions
\ncan be considered.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  In this context, we wish  to  be  guided  by  the  settled
\nprinciples  laid  down  by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases relating to
\ncompulsory retirements.  Of the various judgments cited at the  Bar,  we  feel
\nthat  certain definite principles set out in some of the decisions alone would
\nbe sufficient for our present purpose.   We  find  such  guidelines  from  the
\nfollowing judgments, namely, the cases reported in 19 92 (2) SCC 299, AIR 1999
\nSC 1677, 2001(3) SCC 314, AIR 2002 SC 1345 (cited supra).\n<\/p>\n
                9.   In  AIR  1992(2)  SLR 299 (BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS AND ANOTHER
\nversus CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER BARIPADA AND ANOTHER), in paragraph  34,
\nfive principles have been set out which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                “34.    The   following   principles  emerge  from  the  above
\ndiscussion:\n<\/p>\n
                (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment.  It
\nimplies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) The order has to be passed by the government  on  forming
\nthe  opinion  that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant
\ncompulsorily.  The order is passed  on  the  subjective  satisfaction  of  the
\ngovernment.\n<\/p>\n
                (iii)  Principles  of  natural  justice  have  no place in the
\ncontext of an order of  compulsory  retirement.    This  does  not  mean  that
\njudicial scrutiny  is excluded altogether.  While the High Court or this Court
\nwould not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they
\nare satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it  is  based
\non  no  evidence  or  (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable
\nperson would form the requisite opinion on the given material; is short, if it
\nis found to be a perverse order.\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) The government (or the Review committee, as the case  may
\nbe)  shall  have  to  consider  the  entire  record of service before taking a
\ndecision in the matter – of course attaching more importance to record of  and
\nperformance during  the  later  years.    The record to be so considered would
\nnaturally include the entries in  the  confidential  records\/character  rolls,
\nboth favourable  and adverse.  If a government servant is promoted to a higher
\npost notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting,  more
\nso, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.\n<\/p>\n
                (v)  An  order  of  compulsory  retirement is not liable to be
\nquashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it  uncommunicated
\nadverse remarks  were  also  taken  into  consideration.  That circumstance by
\nitself cannot be a basis for interference.”\n<\/p>\n
                10.  In the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1677 (HIGH  COURT
\nOF PUNJAB  &  HARYANA  THOUGH  R.G.    Versus  ISWAR  CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER),
\nparagraph 31 is relevant for our purpose
\n                “31.  …  In the case where Full  Court  of  the  High  Court
\nrecommends compulsory retirement of an officer High Court on judicial side has
\nto exercise  great  circumspection  in setting aside that order.  Here it is a
\ncomplement of all the judges of the High Court, who go into the question.   It
\nmay  not be possible that in all cases evidence would be forthcoming about the
\ndoubtful integrity of a judicial officer and at times Full Court has to act on
\nthe collective wisdom of all Judges.”\n<\/p>\n
                11.  In 2001(3) SCC 314  (STATE  OF  GUJARAT  versus  UMEDBHAI
\nM.PATEL),  the  law  relating  to compulsory retirement was considered and the
\ncrystallised principles were stated as under in paragraph 11:\n<\/p>\n
                “11.  The  law  relating  to  compulsory  retirement  has  now
\ncrystallised  into  a  definite  principles, which could be broadly summarised
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
                (i) Whenever the services of a public servant  are  no  longer
\nuseful  to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired
\nfor the sake of public interest.\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not  to
\nbe treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
                (iii)  For  better administration, it is necessary to chop off
\ndead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed  after  having
\ndue regard to the entire service record of the officer.\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall
\nbe taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.\n<\/p>\n
                (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can
\nalso be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as
\na short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.\n<\/p>\n
                (vii)  If  the  Officer  was given a promotion despite adverse
\nentries made in the confidential record, that is  a  fact  in  favour  of  the
\nofficer.\n<\/p>\n
                (viii)  Compulsory  retirement  shall  not  be  imposed  as  a
\npunitive measure.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.  In AIR 2002 SC 1345 (STATE OF U.P.  & OTHERS versus VIJAY
\nKUMAR JAIN), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid stress on the integrity  of  a
\nGovernment Employee in the following words in paragraph 14.\n<\/p>\n
                “14.  ….    Integrity  of  a Government employee is foremost
\nconsideration in public service.   If  a  conduct  of  a  Government  employee
\nbecomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public
\nservices,  the Government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire such an
\nemployee in public interest.  The Government’s right to compulsorily retire an
\nemployee is a method to ensure efficiency in public service and while doing so
\nthe Government is entitled under Fundamental Rule 56 to take into account  the
\nentire  service record, character roll or confidential report with emphasis on
\nthe later entries in the character roll of  an  employee.    In  fact,  entire
\nservice  record, character roll or confidential report furnishes the materials
\nto Screening Committee or the State Government, as the case may be to find out
\nwhether a Government Servant has outlived his utility in service.   It  is  on
\nconsideration  of totality of the materials with emphasis on the later entries
\nin the character roll, the Government is expected to form its opinion  whether
\nan employee is to be compulsorily retired or not.”\n<\/p>\n
                13.   While  the  principles relating to compulsory retirement
\nhas been so succinctly set out by the Honb’le Supreme Court in above  referred
\ndecision, the question is whether the order of compulsory retirement issued to
\nthe petitioner and impugned in this Writ Petition calls for interference.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   In G.O.Ms.623, 14-7-1983 and the appended guidelines, it
\nis stated that ‘in cases where the  Government  have  a  reasonable  cause  to
\nbelieve that an officer is lacking in integrity’, that would be an appropriate
\nground to consider him for compulsory retirement irrespective of an assessment
\nof his  ability  or  efficiency  in work.  It is also stated therein that, ‘in
\ncases where the Government have reason to believe that the Officer  habitually
\ntakes bribe but there is no proof of a specific act of corruption or where the
\nOfficer has a bad reputation and where there is abundant suspicion against him
\neven  though  the  guilt  may not have been established, such case can also be
\nbrought for review.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  As stated earlier, though in  the  initial  part  of  the
\nservice  of  the  petitioner in his judicial career, while working as Judicial
\nMagistrate, the petitioner had shown sufficient disposals  in  the  matter  of
\ncriminal cases,  we  find  that after his posting as District Munsif, i.e.  on
\nthe civil side of his Judicial career, the petitioner was finding it difficult
\nto improve his performance.   His  allegation  that  the  concerned  Principal
\nDistrict Judge was not getting along with the petitioner was not substantiated
\nand  based  on  a  stray averment contained in the affidavit, we are unable to
\nhold that the adverse entry in the personal record by the Unit  Head,  namely,
\nthe  then District Judge of Cuddalore was due to personal animosity as against
\nthe petitioner.  Even the statistics of disposals made by the petitioner  were
\nadmittedly  far  low  even after he was advised through official memorandum by
\nthe Registry of the High Court once in the year 1996 and 1998 which only shows
\nthat the petitioner was  not  able  to  show  sufficient  improvement  in  the
\ndisposal of the civil cases.  When the petitioner goes up in the ladder in the
\njudicial  career, he has to necessary deal with not only the criminal matters,
\nbut also the civil cases of substantial nature.  When the petitioner  was  not
\nable  to  cope up with the nature of the work entrusted to him in his capacity
\nas District Munsif while handling the civil cases, it can only be said that he
\nwas incapable of improving himself to the expectation of the job entrusted him
\nas he goes up in the ladder.   In  such  circumstances,  when  constantly  his
\nperformance was found to be declining right from the year 1996, this Court had
\nno  option  except  to  view  it  seriously  at  the time when the question of
\ncontinuing him in service beyond 50 years came up for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  It will have to be reiterated that  when  the  petitioner
\ncame  to  be  appointed  as  District Munsif after 1995, there was no scope to
\nrestrict his work to that of criminal cases alone.    Necessarily  he  had  to
\nhandle  the  civil  cases thereafter and when in spite of repeated persuasions
\nwhen he was not able to show any improvement, the compulsory retirement of the
\npetitioner on completion of 50 years became inevitable.  Further, it was  also
\nfound  out  that  his  honesty and integrity was also not satisfactory and the
\nendorsements found in the personal files after 1996 discloses  that  even  his
\nintegrity and  honesty  was  also ‘poor’.  A perusal of the Vigilance files do
\nshow that there were numerous complaints against the petitioner though many of
\nthem found to be not substantiated.   In  the  said  circumstances,  when  the
\nprinciples  set  out in the above referred to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt are applied, especially the third principle set out in AIR 19 92(2)  SLR
\n299,  viz., that there being no mala fide or the action being not arbitrary or
\nthat the decision was based on sufficient material  available  on  record,  it
\nwill  have  to  be held that the order of compulsory retirement imposed on the
\npetitioner cannot be interfered with.  Equally as held by the Hon’ble  Supreme
\nCourt  in  the Judgment reported in 2001(3) SCC 314, the adverse entries found
\nin the confidential record, which had the endorsement of the  concerned  Judge
\nof this  Court  merits  due  weightage.    In  fact,  the  entries made in the
\nconfidential records were also duly communicated to the petitioner.  When  the
\nentire  service  record of the petitioner is thus perused, we find that in the
\nbetter administration,  it  became  necessary  for  the  Review  Committee  to
\nrecommend  for  the  petitioner’s  compulsory retirement which was found to be
\nperfectly justified by the Full Court.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  Therefore, by applying the  principles  set  out  in  the
\njudgment  reported  in  AIR  1999  SC 1677, when the Full Court of this Court,
\nafter considering the entire service record of the petitioner, recommended his
\ncompulsory retirement, there is very little scope for this Court to scrutinise
\nthe same in  this  Writ  Petition  in  the  absence  of  apparent  perversity,
\narbitrariness or  mala  fide.    In  the  case on hand, the only mala fide was
\nalleged against the then District  Judge  of  Cuddalore.    As  we  have  held
\nearlier, the  same  was  not  substantiated at all.  A perusal of the personal
\nrecords of the petitioner reveals that the conclusion of the Review  Committee
\nas  well  as  that of the Full Court was based on acceptable material and well
\nfounded and therefore, we do not find any scope to  interfere  with  the  said
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
                We do  not  find  any  merit  in this Writ Petition.  The Writ
\nPetition, therefore fails and the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
suk.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Chief Secretary
\nThe State of Tamil Nadu,
\nto Government,
\nPublic (Special-A) Department,
\nFort St.George,
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Registrar,
\nThe High Court of Judicature,
\nChennai-600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 28\/08\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr. Justice F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.P.No.19370 of 1999 V.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - 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\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-23T22:48:17+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T22:48:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3115,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\",\"name\":\"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T22:48:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - 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\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-23T22:48:17+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T22:48:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003"},"wordCount":3115,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003","name":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T22:48:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-radhakrishnan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-28-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Radhakrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130455","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=130455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}