{"id":134572,"date":"1963-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963"},"modified":"2017-06-05T03:56:11","modified_gmt":"2017-06-04T22:26:11","slug":"k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","title":{"rendered":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1464, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 656<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.   S. RAMAMURTHI REDDIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,PONDICHERRY & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/01\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1464\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 656\n CITATOR INFO :\n MV\t    1966 SC1089\t (54)\n F\t    1967 SC1857\t (6)\n RF\t    1975 SC1331\t (180)\n\n\nACT:\nStage  Carriage\t Permit-Grant  to  native  of\tPondicherry-\nAffirmed  by Chief Commissioner as Appellate  Authority-Dis-\ncrimination  on\t ground of place  of  birth-Jurisdiction  of\nSupreme Court-\"The State\"--\"Under the control of  Government\nof  India\"-Meaning-Constitution of India, Arts. 12, 15,\t 32,\n136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioner, a resident of Pondicherry, was an  applicant\nfor  a\tstage carriage permit,. before the  State  Transport\nauthority  pondicherry,\t alongwith 14  other  persons.\t The\nPermit\twas  granted to one Perumal Padayatchi\ttaking\tinto\naccount\t the fact that he was a native of Pondicherry  along\nwith other facts.  The petitioner, whose application for the\npermit\twas  rejected,\twent  in  appeal  to  the  Appellate\nAuthority who dismissed the appeal .\tThe petitioner filed\na writ petition under Art. 32 in this Court  and   contended\nthat  preference  on  the ground  of  place    of      birth\nis   violative of Art. 15 of the Constitution. On the  dates\nof the orders sought to be impugned, Pondicherry was not yet\npart  of the territory of India, but when the  petition\t was\nheard it had become part of the territory of India.  It\t was\ncontended  on behalf of the respondent that in view  of\t the\nobservations  in the decision in N. Masthan Sahib  v.  Chief\nCommissioner,<\/a> [1962] Supp. 1 S. C. R. 981, the writ petition\nwas not maintainable.\nHeld,  that in Art. 12 the words \"under the control  of\t the\nGovernment of India\" qualify the word \"authorities\" and\t not\nthe  word  \"territory\"\tand  Art.  12  gives  an   iaclusive\ndefinition of the word \"State\".\nHeld, further, that if no writ could be issued at the time-.\nwhen  the order was passed for the reason  that\t Pondicherry\nwas  not part of India at that time, no such writ  could  be\nissued in respect of past acts after Pondicherry had  become\npart of India\n 657\nas  that  would\t be giving retrospective  operation  to\t the\nConstitution.\nJanardan  Reddy v. The State, [1950] S.C. R.  940.  referred\nto.\nHeld, also, that judicial or quasi-judicial authorities out-\nside the territory of India but under the administration  of\nthe  Government\t of India cannot be said to  be\t 'under\t the\ncontrol\t of  the  Government of\t India'\t as  the  expression\n\"control\" connotes power to issue directions regarding how a\nthing  may  be done by a superior authority to\tan  inferior\nauthority, and in the case of a quasi-judicial authority  no\nsuch  directions or orders could be issued.  It is  only  in\nthe  case of executive action that a superior authority\t may\ndirect\tthat a particular thing may be done in a  particular\nway  by\t the subordinate authority.  In the very  nature  of\nthings\twhere  rule  of law prevails it is  not\t open  to  a\nGovernment, be it the Government of India or the  Government\nof a State, to direct a quasi-judicial or judicial authority\nto  decide Any particular matters before it in a  particular\nmanner.\nN.   Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner,<\/a> [1962] Supp. 1  S.\nC. R. 981, referred to.\nHeld, also, that the Chief Commissioner who is the Appellate\nAuthority  in  the  case, fell\toutside\t the  definition  of\n'State',  he being a quasi-judicial authority not under\t the\ncontrol\t of the Government of India and, therefore, Art.  15\nof  the Constitution did not apply to him and no  protection\nunder  Art. 15 was available against the Chief\tCommissioner\nat the time the impugned order was made.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE\/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.\t 569
\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the order dated  September  9,
\n1960,  of the Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry in Appeal\t No.
\n94 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t\tWrit Petition No. 347 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
\tPetition  ‘tinder  Art. 32 of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
658<\/span><\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala  for\t the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B.     R.\t  L.
\nIyengar\t and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1 (in C.  A.
\nNo. 569\/61).\n<\/p>\n
R.   Mahalinga Iyer, for respondent No. 2 (in C.A.569\/61).
\nN.   C.\t Chatterjee, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for\t the
\npetitioner and the intervener.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtary,  Solicitor-General  of India,  B.  R.  L.
\nIyengar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 1 (in W.\t I,.
\nNo. 347\/60).\n<\/p>\n
R.   Thiagarajan,  for\trespondent  No.\t 3  (in\t W.  P.\t No.
\n347\/60).\n<\/p>\n
1963.  January 22.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nWANCHOO,  J.–The appeal and the writ petition arise out  of
\nthe  same  order of the Chief  Commissioner  of\t Pondicherry
\nacting\tas the appellate authority under the Motor  Vehicles
\nAct and will be dealt with together.  The petitioner is\t one
\nof  fourteen  persons who had applied for a  stage  carriage
\npermit\tbefore the State Transport  Authority,\tPondicherry.
\nThe petitioner’s application was rejected and the permit was
\ngranted to Perumal Padayatchi, one of the respondents before
\nus.   The  State  Transport  Authority\tconsidered   various
\nfactors\t one  of  which was that Perumal  Padayatchi  was  a
\nnative\tof  Pondicherry\t and taking  all  the  factors\tinto
\naccount, the permit was granted to Perumal Padayatchi.\t The
\npetitioner  went in appeal before the  Appellate  Authority,
\nwho is the Chief Commissioner of Pondicherry.  The Appellate
\nAuthority dismissed
\n 659<\/span>
\nthe appeal and observed that even if it were conceded.\tthat
\nthe  claim%  of the petitioner were more or  less  equal  to
\nthose of Perumal Padayatchi, the latter would be entitled to
\npreference on the ground that he is a native of Pondicherry.
\nWe  may.  add  that though the petitioner used\tto  live  in
\nPondicherry, he was not a native of Pondicherry.  This order
\nrejecting  the appeal was passed on September 9, 1960.\t The
\nappeal has been filed with special leave against this order.
\n‘I  he petitioner has also filed the writ  petition  against
\nthis order in which he raises, the same points.
\nThe  main  contention urged on behalf of the  petitioner  is
\nthat  the  order  of  the  appellate  Authority\t shows\tthat
\npreference  was granted to Perumal Padayatchi on the  ground
\nthat  he was a native of Pondicherry (i. e. he was  born  in
\nPondicherry), while the petitioner was merely a resident  of
\nPondicherry  (i.  e.  he  was  born  in\t Pondicherry).\t The
\npetitioner  contends  that such grant of preference  on\t the
\nground\tof  place  of  birth  is  hit  by  Art.\t 15  of\t the
\nConstitution  as the petitioner is a citizen of\t India,\t and
\nArt.  15  lays down that “the State shall  not\tdiscriminate
\nagainst any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, case,
\nsex, place of birth or any of them”.\n<\/p>\n
This  contention of the petitioner is met on behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents in this way.  The respondents submit that at the
\nrelevant  time, Pondicherry was not within the territory  of
\nIndia and the Constitution did not apply to it.\t  Therefore,
\nthe  petitioner would have no right to apply to\t this  Court
\nfor  special leave under Art. 136 of the  Constitution;\t nor
\nwould  the  petitioner have a right to proceed by way  of  a
\nwrit  petition\tunder  Art. 32 against an  order  which\t was
\npassed\tby the Appellate Authority in Pondicherry at a\ttime
\nwhen  Pondicherry  was\tnot  in\t the  territory\t of   India.
\nReliance  in  this  connection is placed on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents on the decision of this
\n660<\/span>
\nCourt\tin   N.\t Masthan  Sahib\t  v.   Chief   Commissioner,
\nPondicherry<\/a>(1)
\nThe  petitioner\t also relies on the same  decision  of\tthis
\nCourt.\t It is conceded on his behalf that in view  of\tthat
\ndecision it was not open to the petitioner to apply to\tthis
\nCourt  under  Art. 136 and therefore the appeal may  not  be
\nmaintainable.\tBut  it is urged that under Art.  12  ,,,the
\nState”\tfor the purpose of part III of the  Constitution  is
\ndefined to include “‘the Government and Parliament of  India
\nand the Government and the Legislature of each of the States
\nand  all local or other authorities within the territory  of
\nIndia or under the control of the Government of India”.\t  It
\nis therefore contended that even though Pondicherry was\t not
\na  part of India when the order under challenge was  passed,
\nthe Appellate Authority which passed the order was a  “local
\nor  other authority under the control of the  Government  of
\nIndia” and therefore was amenable to a writ under Art. 32 of
\nthe  Constitution.   Further it is urged that  whatever\t may
\nhave  been the position when Masthan Sahib’s case  (1),\t wag
\ndecided,  Pondicherry is now within the territory  of  India
\nsince  August 1962 and therefore this Court can now issue  a
\nwrit   to  the\tAppellate  Authority  if  the  order   under
\nchallenge, violates Art. 15 of the Constitution.
\nThe   respondents  however  contend  that  the\t fact\tthat
\nPondicherry  is now within the territory of India  makes  no
\ndifference  in\tthe application of the decision\t in  Masthan
\nSahib’s\t case (1).  It is submitted that the  reasons  which
\nled  the  majority in that case to refuse to  issue  a\twrit
\nclearly\t imply\t(even  if there is  no\tactual\tdecision  in
\nexpress terms on the question now raised) that a judicial or
\nquasi-judicial\tauthority cannot be said to be an  authority
\n“under\tthe control of the Government of India”\t within\t the
\nmeaning of Art. 12, and therefore the.\tAppellate  Authority
\nwhich was a quasi-,judicial authority was not under the
\n(1)  [1962] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 981.\n<\/p>\n
 661<\/span><\/p>\n
control of the Government of India and could not be amenable
\nto  a  writ under Art. 32 at the time when the\torder  under
\nchallenge  was passed.\tFurther as the Constitution  is\t not
\nretrospective  in operation the fact that Pondicherry  since
\nAugust 1962 is part of the territory of India would not give
\nthis  Court jurisdiction to issue a writ now when  it  could
\nnot  issue a writ to the Appellate Authority  in  September,
\n1960,  even  reading  Art.  32 along with  Art.\t 12  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
Before we come to consider the questions thus raised in\t the
\nwrit  petition,\t we may state that so far as the  appeal  is
\nconcerned,  it\tis  concluded by  the  decision\t in  Masthan
\nSahib’s case (1).  Article 136 gives power to this Court  to
\ngrant  special\tleave to appeal from any  judgment,  decree,
\ndetermination,\tsentence  or order in any  cause  or  matter
\npassed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory  of
\nIndia.\tAdmittedly, Pondicherry was not within the territory
\nof  India when the order was passed and therefore  Art.\t 136
\nwould not apply to such an order.  We have already indicated
\nthat this position is conceded on behalf of the\t petitioner.
\nSo  far\t therefore  as the appeal is concerned\tit  must  be
\ndismissed  on  the authority of Masthan\t Sahib’s  case\t(1),
\nthough\tin  the circumstances we shall pass no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Turning\t now  to the writ petition, the main  question\tthat
\nfalls for consideration is the effect of Art. 12 and whether
\non  a proper interpretation of that Article,  the  Appellate
\nAuthority  could  in this case be said to be  “‘a  local  or
\nother  authority  under\t the control of\t the  Government  of
\nIndia”.\t  It is submitted on behalf of the respondents\tthat
\nthis  matter  is  also\tconcluded by  the  decision  of\t the
\nmajority in Masthan Sahib’s case (1), and that the effect of
\nthat  decision\tis  that  a  judicial  or  a   quasijudicial
\nauthority  would not be an authority “under the\t control  of
\nthe Government of India”.’ On the
\n(1)  [1962] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 981.\n<\/p>\n
662<\/span><\/p>\n
other  hand, the petitioner contends that there was no\tsuch
\ndecision  in  that case as will appear from  the  concluding
\nportion\t of the judgment and therefore the question is\topen
\nfor consideration before us.\n<\/p>\n
As  both  parties  rely on that decision we  may  quote\t the
\nrelevant part thereof.\tBefore we do so we may mention\tthat
\nthe  decision in that case was in two parts, the first\tpart
\nbeing  delivered  on April 28, 1961 and the  final  part  on
\nDecember 8, 1961, though the report contains only the  final
\npart.\tRelevant part of that decision which appears in\t the
\nfirst part delivered on April 28, 1961, is as below :–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Learned\tcounsel\t pointed out  that  for\t the
\n\t      purpose of the exercise of this Court’s  power
\n\t      under  Art.  32 of the  Constitution  for\t the
\n\t      enforcement  of  the  fundamental\t rights\t its
\n\t      jurisdiction   was   not\t limited   to\t the
\n\t      authorities  functioning within the  territory
\n\t      of  India\t but that it extended  also  to\t the
\n\t      giving of directions and the issuing of orders
\n\t      to  authorities functioning even\toutside\t the
\n\t      territory\t  of   India  provided\t that\tsuch
\n\t      authorities were subject to the control of the
\n\t      Government of India.  This  submission.appears
\n\t      to us well-founded and the power of this Court
\n\t      under  Art.  32  of the  Constitution  is\t not
\n\t      circumscribed  by any territorial\t limitations
\n\t      it  extends  not merely over  every  authority
\n\t      within  the territory of India but also  those
\n\t      functioning   outside,  provided\t that\tsuch
\n\t      authorities  are\tunder  the  control  of\t the
\n\t      Government of India”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Then after considering Arts. 142 and 144 of the Constitution
\nand pointing out that in view of the limitations imposed  by
\nArt. 142 on the territory within which alone – the orders or
\ndirections  of\tthis  Court could be  directly\tenforced,  a
\nquestion  was  posted  whether\ta  writ\t in  the  nature  of
\ncertiorari or
\n 663<\/span>
\nother  appropriate  order  or direction to  quash  a  quasi-
\njudicial order passed by an authority outside the  territory
\nof India, though such authority is under the control of\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia could issue.   The  majority  judgment
\nobserved as follows in answer to the question thus posed :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “If  the\torder  of the  authority  under\t the
\n\t      control\tof  the\t Government  of\t India\t but
\n\t      functioning outside the territory of India was
\n\t      of  an  executive\t or  administrative  nature,
\n\t      relief could be afforded to a petitioner under
\n\t      Art. 32 by passing suitable orders against the
\n\t      Government  of  India directing them  to\tgive
\n\t      effect  to the decision of this Court  by\t the
\n\t      exercise\tof their powers of control over\t the
\n\t      authority\t outside  the  territory  of  India.
\n\t      Such  an order could be enforceable by  virtue
\n\t      of Art. 144, as also Art. 142.  But in a\tcase
\n\t      where the order of the outside authority is of
\n\t      a quasi-judicial nature, as in the case before
\n\t      us,   we\tconsider  that\tresort\tto  such   a
\n\t      procedure\t is  not possible and  that  if\t the
\n\t      orders  or directions of this Court could\t Dot
\n\t      be directly enforced against the authority  in
\n\t      Pondicherry,  the order would  be\t ineffective
\n\t      and that the Court will not stultify itself by
\n\t      passing such an order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the final order, however, at p. 1009 of the Report,\t the
\nmajority observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  writ  petitions must also  fail  and  be
\n\t      dismissed for the reason that having regard to
\n\t      the  nature  of  the  relief  sought  and\t the
\n\t      authority\t against  whose\t orders\t relief\t  is
\n\t      claimed  they  too must fail.  They  are\talso
\n\t      dismissed.  We would add that these dismissals
\n\t      would   not  preclude  the  petitioners\tfrom
\n\t      approaching  this Court, if so desired in\t the
\n\t      event  of\t Pondicherry becoming  part  of\t the
\n\t      territory of India”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
664<\/span><\/p>\n
it  is\tcontended  on  behalf of  the  petitioner  that\t the
\nmajority  decision  in\tthat case seems to  imply  that\t the
\nAppellate Authority was under the control of the  Government
\nof India as otherwise it would not have been  necessary\t  to
\nput the two questions which were   out to the Government  of
\nIndia by the first part\t of  the  decision.  Further  it  is
\ncontended  that\t the observations in the final part  of\t the
\njudgment  that\tthe  petitioners  in  that  case  were\t not
\nprecluded from approaching this Court, if so desired, in the
\nevent  of  Pondicherry\tbecoming part of  the  territory  of
\nIndia, also show that it was not held in that decision\tthat
\njudicial  or quasi-judicial authorities could not  be  under
\nthe control of the Government of India.\t On the other  hand,
\nit  is contended on behalf of the respondents that  judicial
\nor quasi-judicial authorities were not under the control  of
\nthe Government of India, for if they were a writ would\thave
\nbeen  issued in that case in the same way as in the case  of
\nan executive or administrative authority, i.e. a writ  could
\nissue  to  the Government of India “directing them  to\tgive
\neffect\tto  the decision of this Court by  the\texercise  of
\ntheir  powers  of  control over the  authority\toutside\t the
\nterritory  of  India”.\t We have  carefully  considered\t the
\nobservations in the majority decision in this connection and
\nit must be held that that decision is not a direct authority
\non the question that is now posed before us., for the  point
\nwas  not  then specifically raised; and\t expressly  decided,
\nthough\tas we will later point out, the implication  of\t the
\nsaid  decision\tis  against the\t contention  raised  by\t the
\npetitioner.  We have therefore to examine the contentions of
\neither\tparty as to the exact scope and effect of the  words
\n“‘all  local  or other authorities within the  territory  of
\nIndia  or under the control of the Government of India”,  as
\nif the question is res integra.\n<\/p>\n
The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the
\nwords “‘under the control of the Government
\n 665<\/span>
\nof  India” in Art. 12 do not qualify the word  “authorities”
\ntherein\t but qualify the word “territory”.   The  petitioner
\nwould therefore read the relevant words of Art. 12 like this
\n:  “All local or other authorities within the  territory  of
\nIndia or all local or other authorities within the territory
\nunder  the  control  of the  Government\t of  India”.   Thus,
\naccording  to the petitioner, all that is required  is\tthat
\nthe  territory\teven if it is not the  territory  of  India,
\nshould be under the control of the Government of India,\t and
\nif  the territory is under the control of the Government  of
\nIndia  all,  local or other authorities\t in  such  territory
\nwould  be included in the words “the State”.  On  the  other
\nhand,  the contention on behalf of the respondents  is\tthat
\nthe  words  “under the control of the Government  of  India”
\nqualify the word “authorities” and not the word\t “territory”
\nin  the relevant part of Art. 12 and that that part  on\t its
\ntrue  interpretation would read thus : “all local  or  other
\nauthorities  within the territory of India or all  local  or
\nother  authorities  under the control of the  Government  of
\nIndia”.\n<\/p>\n
Having given our anxious consideration to this matter we are
\nof opinion that the interpretation put on the relevant words
\non  behalf  of\tthe  respondents  is  the  right  one,\tboth
\ngramatically  and  otherwise.  Art. 12\tgives  an  inclusive
\ndefinition  of the words “the State” and within these  words
\nof that Article are included, (i) the Government and Parlia-
\nment  of India, (ii) the Government and the  legislature  of
\neach   of  the\tStates,\t and  (iii)  all  local\t  or   other
\nauthorities.   These  are  the only  authorities  which\t are
\nincluded in the words “the State” in Art. 12 for the purpose
\nof Part III.  Then follow the words which qualify the  words
\n“all  local  or other authorities”.  These  local  or  other
\nauthorities which are included within the words “‘the State”
\nof  Art. 12 are of two kinds, namely, (i) those\t within\t the
\nterritory of India, and (ii) those under the control of the
\n666<\/span>
\nGovernment, of India.  There are thus two qualifying clauses
\nto  “all  local or other authorities.” These clauses  are  :\n<\/p>\n
(i)within the territory of India and (ii) under the  control
\nof  the\t Government of India.  It would in  our\t opinion  be
\ngramatically  wrong to read the words “under the control  of
\nthe Government of India” as qualifying the word\t territory”.
\nFrom  the scheme of’ Art. 12 it is clear that three  classes
\nof  authorities are meant to be included in the words  ‘,the
\nState”,\t there; and the third class is of two kinds and\t the
\nqualifying   words   which  follow  “all  local\t  or   other
\nauthorities”  define  the two types of such local  or  other
\nauthorities  as already indicated above.  Further all  local
\nor  other authorities within the territory of India  include
\nall authorities within the territory of India whether  under
\nthe control of the Government of India or the Governments of
\nvarious States and even autonomous authorities which may not
\nbe  under  the\tcontrol\t of  the  Government  at  all.\t  In
\ncontradistinction  to  this  the  second  qualifying  clause
\nrefers only to such authorities as are under the control  of
\nthe Government of India and so the second qualifying  clause
\nmust   govern  the  word  “authorities”.’   Therefore,\t the
\ninterpretation\tput  forward on behalf\tof  the\t respondents
\nseems  to us to be correct both gramatically and  otherwise.
\n“All local or other authorities” would thus be of two kinds,
\nnamely,\t (i) those within the territory of India,  and\t(ii)
\nthose under the control of the Government of India.  In\t the
\nlatter\tcase there is no qualification that they  should  be
\nwithin\tthe  territory of India.  It is enough if  they\t are
\nunder  the control of the Government of India wherever\tthey
\nmay  be.   We are therefore of opinion that  no\t writ  could
\nissue to the appellate authority at the time when the  order
\nunder challenge was passed, unless it could be called “other
\nauthority  under  the  control of the  Government  of  India
\nFurther,, there can be no doubt that if no writ could  issue
\nto the Appellate Authority at the time the order was passed,
\nno writ could issue now after
\n 667<\/span>
\nPondicherry  has become part of the territory of India,\t for
\nthat   would  be  giving  retrospective\t operation  to\t the
\nConstitution  for  this purpose which  obviously  cannot  be
\ndone: (see Janardan Reddy v. the State(1)).
\nThe  next  question is whether a judicial  or  quasijudicial
\nauthority  outside  the territory of India  but\t within\t the
\nterritory  under  the administration of\t the  Government  of
\nIndia can be said to be under the control of the  Government
\nof India.  For this purpose we have to find out the  meaning
\nof the words “under the control of the Government of  India”
\nas  used  in  Art. 12.\tIt is submitted\t on  behalf  of\t the
\npetitioner  that  if  an  authority  is\t appointed  by\t the
\nGovernment of India, is paid by the Government of India\t and
\nis liable to disciplinary action by the Government of India,
\nit  would  be  an  authority  “under  the  control  of\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia”.\t  It  is urged\tthat  as  the  Chief
\nCommissioner, who is the appellate Authority, was  appointed
\nby  the Government of India, was paid by the  Government  of
\nIndia  and  was\t under\tthe  disciplinary  control  of\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia, he would be an  authority  under\t the
\ncontrol\t of  the Government of India and  this\tcourt  would
\ntherefore  have\t been entitled to issue a writ\tagainst\t him
\neven  when the order was passed and therefore all  the\tmore
\nso,, when Pondicherry is now within the territory of  India.
\nThe  contention however that this Court could issue  a\twrit
\nunder  Art. 32 against the Appellate Authority even  at\t the
\ntime when the order was passed, is clearly negatived by\t the
\nmajority  decision in Masthan Sahib’s case (2), for if\tthat
\ncould  be  done, writ would have been issued in\t that  case.
\nThe  reason why writ was not issued in Masthan Sahib’s\tcase
\n(2), was that the quasi -judicial authority was outside\t the
\nterritory of India and this Court held that if the authority
\nwere of an executive or administrative nature, a writ  could
\nhave been issued to the Government of India “”directing them
\nto give effect to the decision of this Court by the exercise
\nof their powers
\n(1) [1950] S.C.R. 940. (2) [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 981.\n<\/p>\n
668<\/span><\/p>\n
of  control  over  the authority outside  the  territory  of
\nIndia”.\t  But as the authority in that case ‘just  like\t the
\nauthority in the present case was a quasi-judicial authority
\nresort\tto  such  a procedure was not possible\tand  if\t the
\norders or directions could not be directly enforced  against
\nthe   authority\t  in  Pondicherry,  the\t  order\t  would\t  be
\nineffective.   This clearly implies that the  quasi-judicial
\nauthority  was\tnot under the control of the  Government  of
\nIndia  like  an executive or  administrative  authority\t and
\ntherefore  it  was not possible for this Court\tto  issue  a
\ndirection  to  the Government of India to  direct  a  quasi-
\njudicial  authority to give effect to the decision  of\tthis
\nCourt  “by the exercise of their powers of control over\t the
\nauthority outside the territory of India”.  It follows\tfrom
\nthese  observations  in the majority decision in  that\tcase
\nthat  the control envisaged by the words “under the  control
\nof  the Government of India” in Art. 12 is not\tthe  control
\nwhich arises out of mere appointment, payment and the  right
\nto  take  disciplinary action; the control  envisaged  under
\nArt.  12  is a control of the functions of  the\t authorities
\nconcerned,  and\t the  right of the Government  of  India  by
\nvirtue\tof that control to give directions to the  authority
\nto  function  in a particular manner with  respect  to\tsuch
\nfunctions.   Now if the authorities were  administrative  or
\nexecutive  the control of the Government of India would\t not
\nonly  be by virtue of appointment, payment and\tdisciplinary
\naction, but it would also extend to directing the  authority
\nto  carry  out its functions in a particular  manner  and  a
\npurely\texecutive or administrative authority can always  be
\ndirected  by  the  Government  of India under  which  it  is
\nfunctioning to act in a particular manner with\t  respect to
\nits  functions.\t  This, however,cannot be said of  a  quasi-
\njudicial or judicial authority even though the Government of
\nIndia may have appointed the authority and may be paying  it
\nand  may have the right to take disciplinary action  against
\nit in certain eventualities.  It was not open
\n 669<\/span>
\nto  the\t Government of India to control the functions  of  a
\nquasi-judicial or judicial authority and direct it to decide
\na particular matter before it in a particular way.  It seems
\nto us therefore that the control envisaged under Art. 12  is
\ncontrol\t of the functions of the authorities and it is\tonly
\nwhen the Government of India can control the function of  an
\nauthority  that it can be said that the authority  is  under
\nthe  control  of the Government of India.  Such\t control  is
\npossible in the case of a purely executive or administrative
\nauthority; it is impossible in the case of a  quasi-judicial
\nor  judicial  authority, for in the very nature\t of  things,
\nwhere  rule  of’  law  prevails,  it  is  not  open  to\t the
\nGovernment, be it the Government of India or the  Government
\nof a State, to direct a quasi-judicial or judicial authority
\nto  decide  a particular’ matter before it in  a  particular
\nmanner.\t  Therefore,  this being the nature of\tthe  control
\nwhich the Government of India must exercise in order that an
\nauthority functioning outside the territory of India may  be
\nsaid to be an authority under the control of the  Government
\nof India within the meaning of Art. 12, a quasi-judicial  or
\njudicial  authority cannot be said to be an authority  under
\nthe control of the Government of India within this  meaning.
\nWe  are\t therefore of opinion that the\tAppellate  authority
\nbeing quasi-judicial could not be directed by the Government
\nof  India  to  decide a particular matter  before  it  in  a
\nparticular manner and therefore it cannot be said that it is
\nan  authority under the control of the Government of  India.
\nAs  we\thave  already  indicated,  this\t follows  from\t the
\nreasoning  of  the  majority in Masthan\t Sahib’s  Case\t(1),
\nthough it was not decided specifically as such in that case.
\nWe are therefore of opinion that judicial or quasi-.judicial
\nauthorities  functioning in territories administered by\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia  but outside the\tterritory  of  India
\ncannot\tbe said to be authorities under the control  of\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia  within the meaning of  Art.  12,\t and
\ntherefore Art. 12 would not apply to
\n670<\/span>
\nsuch authorities functioning outside the territory of India.
\nConsequently  it would not be open to this Court to issue  a
\nwrit   under   Art.  32\t read  with  Art.   12\t against   a
\nquasi-.judicial\t authority  outside the territory  of  India
\neven though that authority might have been appointed by\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia, might be paid by\t the  Government  of
\nIndia  or  the Government of India might have the  power  of
\ndisciplinary  action  against it.  The\tAppellate  Authority
\nbeing a quasijudicial authority would thus not be under\t the
\ncontrol\t of  the Government of India within the\t meaning  of
\nArt.  12.   Therefore it would not have been  open  to\tthis
\nCourt to issue a writ against the order under challenge when
\nit was passed.\tIn consequence it is not open to this  Court
\nnow  that  Pondicherry has become part of India to  issue  a
\nwrit  to  the Appellate Authority with respect to  an  order
\npassed by it before Pondicherry became part of India, as the
\nConstitution for this purpose is not retrospective.
\nThe  matter  can  be  looked at in  another  way.   Art.  15
\nprohibits the State from discriminating against any  citizen
\non  grounds  only of religion, race, caste,  sex,  place  of
\nbirth  or any of them.\tTherefore it is only when the  State
\nas  defined in Art. 12 (for there is nothing in the  context
\nof  Art.  15  to require otherwise)  discriminates,  that  a
\ncitizen\t can complain of the breach of Art. 15 and  ask\t for
\nrelief from this Court under Art. 32.  We have however\theld
\nthat the Chief Commissioner being a quasi-judicial authority
\nwas not under the control of the Government of India  within
\nthe  meaning  of Art. 12.  Therefore, he could\tnot  be\t the
\nState  within  that  Article.  If so, it  follows  that\t the
\ndiscrimination (assuming there was any) was by an  authority
\nwhich  was  not the State.  The protection of  Art.  1.5  is
\nagainst\t discrimination\t by  “the  State.”  The\t  petitioner
\ntherefore would not be entitled to any protection under Art.
\n15  against the Chief Commissioner at the time the  impugned
\norder
\n 671<\/span>
\nwas  made.  That is another reason why the present  petition
\nmust fail.\n<\/p>\n
We  therefore  dismiss the appeal and pass no  order  as  to
\ncosts in respect thereof.  We dismiss the writ petition with
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Writ petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1464, 1964 SCR (1) 656 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: K. S. RAMAMURTHI REDDIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER,PONDICHERRY & ANR. DATE OF […]<\/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-134572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - 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\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-04T22:26:11+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T22:26:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\"},\"wordCount\":4363,\"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\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\",\"name\":\"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T22:26:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - 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\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-04T22:26:11+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963","datePublished":"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T22:26:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963"},"wordCount":4363,"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\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963","name":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief ... on 22 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T22:26:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-ramamurthi-reddiar-vs-the-chief-on-22-january-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. S. Ramamurthi Reddiar vs The Chief … on 22 January, 1963"}]},{"@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\/134572","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=134572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}