{"id":136146,"date":"1998-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998"},"modified":"2017-07-30T02:26:42","modified_gmt":"2017-07-29T20:56:42","slug":"ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M J Rao.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.C. Agrawal, M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. Misra<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAVINDRA KUMAR RAI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. AGRAWAL, M. JAGANNADHA RAO, A.P. MISRA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO. J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India  has been  filed against  the State  of Maharashtra<br \/>\n(1st respondent) and the Medical Education Department of the<br \/>\nState (2nd  respondent) for the issue of a writ or direction<br \/>\ncommanding the State to hold a Combined Entrance Examination<br \/>\nfor admission  to Medical  Colleges in the said State and to<br \/>\ndirect the  State to  start the process for holding the said<br \/>\ncompetitive examination for the students to be admitted into<br \/>\nmedical colleges  from 1998  onwards. The  writ petition  is<br \/>\nbased mainly  on the Regulations made by the Indian Medicals<br \/>\nCouncil recently in 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The petitioner has filed this case as a public interest<br \/>\ncase and  has also  stated that\t his daughter  is  going  to<br \/>\nappear for  the 12th  standard examination from the Kendriya<br \/>\nVidyalaya, 1, Colaba, Mumbai in march 1998 and that she will<br \/>\nbecome eligible\t for admission\tto medical colleges in 1998.<br \/>\nPetitioner states  that 85%  of\t seats\tin  Maharashtra\t are<br \/>\navailable for  local students  because 15%  are to go to the<br \/>\nAll India  Pool. It is pointed out that in maharashtra there<br \/>\nare a large number of medical colleges affiliated to various<br \/>\nuniversities like  the Bombay  University, Pune\t University,<br \/>\nNagpur\tUniversity  etc.  As  of  today\t admissions  to\t the<br \/>\ncolleges under\tthese  University  are\tbeing  made  by\t the<br \/>\nMedical Education  Department of Government (2nd respondent)<br \/>\nsolely on  the basis  of marks\tobtained at  the  qualifying<br \/>\nexaminations which  are conducted  by three  Boards, namely,<br \/>\nthe ISC\t Board, the  CBSE Board\t and the  Maharashtra Higher<br \/>\nSecondary Examination  Board, Under  that  system,  and\t 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent invites  applications from students and allocates<br \/>\nthe students  to the  Medical Colleges in the State, some of<br \/>\nthem  being  Government\t colleges  and\tsome  under  Private<br \/>\nManagement and\tMunicipal Corporations\tof Bombay and Thane.<br \/>\nIt is  pointed out  that according to rulings of the supreme<br \/>\nCourt., admissions  to\tmedical\t colleges  should  be  based<br \/>\nstrictly on  merit and\tthat there should be proper criteria<br \/>\nfor admissions.\t Reference in this connection is made to the<br \/>\nRegulations framed  recently by the medical Council of India<br \/>\nwith the  previous sanction  of the  Central  Government  by<br \/>\nvirtue of  power conferred  on it.  Under section  33 of the<br \/>\nIndian Medical\tCouncil Act,  1956.  These  Regulations\t are<br \/>\ncalled &#8216;Regulations  on Graduate  Medical Education,  1997&#8217;.<br \/>\n(Published in  Part III, Section 4 of Gazette of India dated<br \/>\n17.5.1997). Regulation 4 prescribes, in considerable detail,<br \/>\nthe eligibility criteria  for students with various types of<br \/>\neducation leading to 10+2 or its equivalent. Regulation 5 is<br \/>\nimportant and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Reg.5:Selection of  Students:  The<br \/>\n     selection of  students  to\t medical<br \/>\n     college shall  be bases  solely  on<br \/>\n     merit  of\tthe  candidate\tand  for<br \/>\n     determination   of\t   merit,    the<br \/>\n     following\t criteria   be\t adopted<br \/>\n     uniformly throughout the country:<br \/>\n     (1)  In   States  having  only  one<br \/>\n     Medical College  and one university<br \/>\n     \/board \/examining\tbody  conducting<br \/>\n     the  qualifying   examination,  the<br \/>\n     marks obtained  at such  qualifying<br \/>\n     examination  may\tbe  taken   into<br \/>\n     consideration;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (2) In States, having more than one<br \/>\n     university \/board\t\/examining  body<br \/>\n     conducting\t     the      qualifying<br \/>\n     examination (or where there is more<br \/>\n     than one  medical college under the<br \/>\n     administrative   control\tof   one<br \/>\n     authority) a  competitive\tentrance<br \/>\n     examination should be held so as to<br \/>\n     achieve  a\t uniform  evaluation  as<br \/>\n     there may\tbe variation of standard<br \/>\n     at qualifying examination conducted<br \/>\n     by different agencies;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (3) Where\tthere are  more than one<br \/>\n     college in\t a state  and  only  one<br \/>\n     University\/board\tconducting   the<br \/>\n     qualifying\t   examination,\t then  a<br \/>\n     joint    selection\t    board     be<br \/>\n     constituted for all the colleges;<br \/>\n     (4)    A\t competitive\tentrance<br \/>\n     examination is absolutely necessary<br \/>\n     in the cases of Institutions of All<br \/>\n     India character;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (5) To  be eligible for competitive<br \/>\n     entrance examination, the candidate<br \/>\n     must  have\t  passed  any\tof   the<br \/>\n     qualifying\t    examinations      as<br \/>\n     enumerated\t under\t the  head  note<br \/>\n     &#8216;Eligibility Criteria&#8217;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The proviso to the Regulation prescribes the percentage<br \/>\nof marks  which are  to be obtained at the qualifying or\/and<br \/>\ncompetitive  examinations   by\tstudents   including   those<br \/>\nbelonging to  SC\/ST or\tO.B.C.\tclassification.\t It  is\t the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s case  that sub-clause  (2) of  Regulation 5  is<br \/>\nattracted to the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A counter\taffidavit  has\tbeen  filed  by\t the  Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary to  the Government  of Maharashtra  in the Medical<br \/>\nEducation and  Drug Department.\t It is stated there that the<br \/>\ncase of\t the State  of Maharashtra  does not fall under sub-<br \/>\nclause (2) of Regulation 5 but falls under sub-clause (3) of<br \/>\nRegulation 5.  It is accepted that there are several medical<br \/>\ncolleges and university in the State of maharashtra and that<br \/>\nthere are also various qualifying examining  bodies i.e. (i)<br \/>\nICS Board  (ii) CBSE  Board  and  (iii)\t Maharashtra  Higher<br \/>\nSecondary Board.  Under the  Maharashtra Board,\t there are 7<br \/>\ndivisional examination boards and the number of the students<br \/>\nwho qualify  at 10+2  stage through  the Maharashtra  Board,<br \/>\nwould be  more than 1,10,000. Those who pass from CBSE would<br \/>\nbe around  900 and  represent  only  0.5%  or  0.8%  of\t the<br \/>\nstudents who  qualify in  10 +\t2. It is therefore contended<br \/>\nthat for  a small  number of students appearing for the CBSE<br \/>\nexamination, it\t will not  be proper to categorize the State<br \/>\nof Maharashtra\tinto sub-clause\t (2) of\t Regulation 5. It is<br \/>\nalso pointed out that the Governor of Maharashtra has issued<br \/>\nproceedings under  Article 371(2) (c) in regard to 3 regions<br \/>\nVidharba,  Marathwada  and  rest  of  Maharashtra,  and\t the<br \/>\nadmissions for\t1997-98 have  to be  made by the Development<br \/>\nBoards which  are separately  constituted for the 3 regions.<br \/>\nAdmissions are\tnot University\twise  but  are\tDevelopment-<br \/>\nregion wise.  It is  stated that  it will  be  difficult  to<br \/>\nimplement  the\tdirections  of\tthe  Governor  if  a  Common<br \/>\nEntrance Examination  is to  be held for the whole State. It<br \/>\nis also\t stated that it will be an extremely arduous task to<br \/>\nconduct a  Common Entrance  Examination for 50,000 students.<br \/>\nit involves  setting of\t papers, evaluation of answer sheets<br \/>\nand preparation of merit lists after taking into account the<br \/>\nchoices of  the students  in respect  of medical  and Dental<br \/>\ncolleges and  this will prolong the admission process. It is<br \/>\nsaid that  holding Common  Entrance Examination\t for medical<br \/>\nand not\t for Engineering  courses will be discriminatory. It<br \/>\nis then stated that the petitioner&#8217;s daughter is yet to pass<br \/>\n10+2 and  petitioner could  even make his daughter apply for<br \/>\nthe 15%\t All India  Pool. Rules for admission to 1998-99 are<br \/>\nyet to\tbe published,  the writ petition is premature and is<br \/>\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We have  heard the\t learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nthe learned  counsel  for  the\tState  of  Maharashtra.\t The<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the Medical Council  of India supported<br \/>\nthe writ petitioner&#8217;s contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We may  at the  outset point out that inasmuch as there<br \/>\nare three  Boards in  Maharashtra State\t which\tconduct\t the<br \/>\nqualifying examination\tand inasmuch  as there\tare  several<br \/>\nUniversities, the  State of  Maharashtra would\tclearly fall<br \/>\nunder sub-clause  (2) of  Regulation 5\tmade by\t the Medical<br \/>\nCouncil and  not under sub-clause(3). The contention for the<br \/>\nState that  candidates from  CBSE Board\t are small in number<br \/>\ndoes not  appeal to us. Inasmuch as there is no dispute that<br \/>\nmore than  one Board conducts the qualifying examination and<br \/>\nthe Universities are more than one in number, sub-clause (3)<br \/>\nof Regulation  5, in  our view, is not attracted. It is also<br \/>\nnot possible  for the  State to say that conducting a common<br \/>\nentrance examination  will delay  the admission\t process  or<br \/>\nthat  it   will\t be   extremely\t difficult  to\tconduct\t the<br \/>\nexamination. In\t fact the statement in the counter affidavit<br \/>\nto the\teffect that  the State\thas been conducting a common<br \/>\nexamination  for  1,80,000  at\tthe  10+2  level  in  the  7<br \/>\ndivisional boards  would  itself  show\tthat  the  State  is<br \/>\ncapable of  conducting a  common  Entrance  Examination\t for<br \/>\nadmission  to  medical\tcolleges,  even\t if  the  number  of<br \/>\nstudents is  large. We\tmay also say that in several States,<br \/>\nCommon Entrance\t Examination is\t being conducted even before<br \/>\n1997 when these Regulations made by the Medical Council came<br \/>\ninto force.  In fact in some States, entrance examination is<br \/>\nconducted jointly for Engineering and medical students also.<br \/>\nWe fail\t to see why the State of Maharashtra should say that<br \/>\nit will be an arduous task.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In a  recent judgment  of this  Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1174091\/\">Shri  Chander<br \/>\nChinar Bada  Akhara Udasin Society &amp; Others vs. State of J<\/a>&amp;K<br \/>\n&amp; Others  [1996 (5) SCC 732], in the context of admission to<br \/>\nMedical\t Colleges,  and\t the  need  for\t a  Common  Entrance<br \/>\nExamination, this Court observed (p.738) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It need  not be  pointed out  that<br \/>\n     the percentage  of marks secured by<br \/>\n     different applicants  at  different<br \/>\n     types of examinations at the higher<br \/>\n     secondary stage  cannot be\t treated<br \/>\n     as\t  uniform.    Some    of    such<br \/>\n     examinations are  conducted at  the<br \/>\n     State level, others at the national<br \/>\n     level including  the Indian  School<br \/>\n     Certificate    examination.     The<br \/>\n     percentage\t secured   at  different<br \/>\n     examinations  are\t bound\tto  vary<br \/>\n     according to  standard  applied  by<br \/>\n     such examination  bodies, which  is<br \/>\n     well  known.   As\tsuch   a  common<br \/>\n     entrance  examination   has  to  be<br \/>\n     held.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It has  been, therefore,  held that  a &#8216;Commom Entrance<br \/>\nExamination&#8217; for  admission to\tMedical Colleges  has to  be<br \/>\nheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We next  come to the contention of the respondent based<br \/>\nupon Article  371 (2)(c)  of the Constitution of India. That<br \/>\nArticle\t permits   the\tGovernor  to  require  an  equitable<br \/>\narrangement be\tmade for  providing adequate  facilities for<br \/>\n&#8216;technical education  and vocational training&#8217; in respect of<br \/>\nthe areas  Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra.<br \/>\nAssuming that  medical education  falls within\tthe scope of<br \/>\nthe said  Article, we  do not  think  that  compliance\twith<br \/>\nRegulation 5(2)\t of the\t Regulations  made  by\tthe  Medical<br \/>\nCouncil of  Indian will\t in any\t manner come  in the  way of<br \/>\ngiving effect to the provisions of Article 371(2)(c).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Finally, it  was argued for the respondent that. in any<br \/>\nevent, it will not be possible to conduct a `common entrance<br \/>\nexamination&#8217;  for  the\tacademic  year\tstarting  from\t1998<br \/>\ninasmuch as,  just now,\t the time available is too short. We<br \/>\ncannot agree. These Regulations have come into force as long<br \/>\nback as\t on 4.3.1997. There is, in our view, sufficient time<br \/>\navailable and  all that\t is necessary is that the State must<br \/>\nimmediately  draw  up  the  programme  and  time  table\t for<br \/>\nconducting the Common Entrance Examination for 1998 year and<br \/>\nfor other steps in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  result, we\t allow the  writ petition and direct<br \/>\nthe  State   of\t Maharashtra   and  its\t  Medical  Education<br \/>\nDepartment to  start the  process  for\tholding\t the  Common<br \/>\nEntrance Examination  for admission  to Medical\t Colleges in<br \/>\nMaharashtra    for  the\t year  1998  and  conduct  the\tsaid<br \/>\nExamination in\taccordance with the `Regulations on Graduate<br \/>\nMedical Education  1997&#8242; made  by  the\tMedical\t Council  of<br \/>\nIndia. Writ petition is allowed as stated above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 Author: M J Rao. Bench: S.C. Agrawal, M. Jagannadha Rao, A.P. Misra PETITIONER: RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/02\/1998 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, M. JAGANNADHA RAO, A.P. MISRA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/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-136146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-29T20:56:42+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T20:56:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":1759,\"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\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T20:56:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-29T20:56:42+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T20:56:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998"},"wordCount":1759,"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\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998","name":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T20:56:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravindra-kumar-rai-vs-state-of-maharashtra-others-on-27-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravindra Kumar Rai vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Others on 27 February, 1998"}]},{"@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\/136146","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=136146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}