{"id":14083,"date":"1953-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953"},"modified":"2015-08-25T22:05:14","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T16:35:14","slug":"satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","title":{"rendered":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 250, \t\t 1953 SCR 655<\/div>\n
Author: V Bose<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSATISH CHANDRA ANAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE UNION OF INDIA.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/03\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  250\t\t  1953 SCR  655\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1954 SC 369\t (15,16)\n RF\t    1957 SC 886\t (5)\n E&F\t    1958 SC  36\t (27,28,33,39,40)\n R\t    1958 SC 232\t (18)\n F\t    1958 SC 905\t (6)\n RF\t    1961 SC 177\t (11)\n R\t    1963 SC 602\t (4)\n RF\t    1964 SC 600\t (34,42,45,127,134,148)\n R\t    1964 SC1585\t (11)\n RF\t    1971 SC1516\t (7)\n RF\t    1973 SC2641\t (21)\n RF\t    1975 SC2045\t (6)\n RF\t    1976 SC1766\t (14)\n RF\t    1976 SC2547\t (8,9)\n RF\t    1982 SC1107\t (30)\n F\t    1985 SC 551\t (29)\n\n\nACT:\n  constitution\tof  India, 1950, Arts.\t14,  16,  311-Civil\nservant-Appointment on contract for 5 years-Continuation  of\nappointment   on  temporary  service  basis-Termination\t  of\nservice on one month's notice-Legality--Fundamental  rights-\nCentral\t Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949,  r.\n5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The petitioner was employed by the Government of India  on\na  five\t year contract in the  Resettlement  and  Employment\nDirectorate  of the Ministry of Labour.\t When  his  contract\nwas  due  to expire the Government made him a new  offer  to\ncontinue  him  in service in his post  temporarily  for\t the\nperiod\tof the Resettlement and Employment  Organisation  on\nthe condition that he will be governed by the Central  Civil\nServices (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, which provided for\ntermination  of\t the contract by month's  notice  on  either\nside.\tHe accepted the offer and continued in service,\t but\nsubsequently  his services were terminated after giving\t him\none month's notice, The petitioner applied for relief  under\nArt.  32  (1) of the Constitution alleging that\t his  funda-\nmental\trights\tunder  Arts.  311, 14  and  16\t(1)  of\t the\nConstitution were infringed:\n   Held,  (i) that Art. 311 had no application as  this\t was\nnot  a\tcase  of dismissal or removal  from  service  nor  a\nreduction  in rank but only an ordinary case of\t a  contract\nbeing  terminated  by notice under one of its  clauses,\t the\ndifference between dismissal and\n656\nremoval\t being that the former ordinarily disqualifies\tfrom\nfuture employment but not the latter;\n  (ii)\tArt.  14  had  no application as  he  had  not\tbeen\ndiscriminated against and had not been denied the protection\nof any laws which others similarly situated could claim;\n(iii)\t  Art. 16 was equally inapplicable as the petitioner\nwas  not  denied equal opportunity in a matter\trelating  to\nappointment or employment but had been treated just like any\nother person to whom an offer of temporary employment  under\nthese conditions was made.\nThe  State can enter into contracts of temporary  employment\nand impose special terms in each case, provided they are not\ninconsistent with the Constitution, and those who choose  to\naccept those terms and enter into the contract are bound  by\nthem, even as the State is bound.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition (No. 201 of 1952) under Art.
\n32  of the Constitution for the enforcement  of\t fundamental
\nrights.\n<\/p>\n
B. K. Varma.and G. C. Mathur for the petitioner.
\nM.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (Porus A.  Mehta,
\nwith him) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1953.  March 13. -The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBOSE  J.-This  is  a  petition\tunder  article\t32  of\t the
\nConstitution in which the petitioner seeks redress for what,
\naccording  to  him, is a breach of  his\t fundamental  rights
\nunder  articles\t 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.   It\t was
\nargued\tat considerable length by the petitioner in  person.
\nThen,  when  our  judgment was nearly ready,  he  put  in  a
\npetition  asking for a rehearing and for permission to\tfile
\nsome  fresh papers.  When that was refused he came again  on
\nanother,day  and  asked\t for leave to engage  an  agent\t and
\nappear through counsel as he felt he had not been able to do
\njustice\t to  his case in person. (It may be  mentioned\tthat
\nthough\the had originally engaged an agent he dismissed\t him
\nbefore\tthe hearing when he appeared in person.) We  granted
\nhis  request and counsel reargued the case for him  but\t has
\nnot carried the matter any further.  The facts are these.\n<\/p>\n
657<\/span><\/p>\n
In   October,1945,  the\t petitioner  was  employed  by\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia  on  a  five  year  contracting,\t the
\nDirectorate  General of Resettlement and Employment  of\t the
\nMinistry of Labour.  This was after selection by the Federal
\nPublic\t Service  Commission.\tAfter  a  short\t period\t  of
\npractical  training,  he  was posted in\t January,  1946,  at
\nJabalpur  as  the  Manager of  the  Sub-Regional  Employment
\nExchange and was later confirmed in this appointment.
\n This  contract\t of  service was due  to  expire  in  1950.
\nShortly\t before its expiration the Government of India\tmade
\nhim a new offer, embodied in its letter dated the 30th June,
\n1950,  to  continue  him in service on\tthe  expiry  of\t his
\ncontract on the terms specified in that letter.\t Among\tthem
\nwere the following:\n<\/p>\n
 (3)  Other  conditions of service:-On the  termination\t of
\nyour  contract you will be allowed to continue in your\tpost
\ntemporarily   for  the\tperiod\tof  the\t  Resettlement\t and
\nEmployment Organisation and will be governed by the  Central
\nCivil  Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, unless\t you
\nare a permanent Government servant.”\n<\/p>\n
 He was asked in the letter to intimate to the Ministry\t of
\nLabour\twhether\t he was willing to continue  in\t service  on
\nthose  terms  and he admits that he accepted the  offer\t and
\ncontinued  in  service, He was not  a  permanent  Government
\nservant though it was contended in argument that he was, for
\nhe was on a five year contract and the work for which he was
\nemployed,  namely  Resettlement and Employment,\t was  itself
\nonly  of  a temporary character.  Therefore,  the  Temporary
\nService Rules applied.\n<\/p>\n
On those rules,’ rule 5 is material.  It runs as follows:
\n 5 (a) The service of a temporary Government servant who is
\nnot   in   quasi-permanent  service  shall  be\t liable\t  to
\ntermination at any time by notice in writing given either by
\nthe  Government servant to the appointing authority,  or  by
\nthe appointing authority to the Government servant.\n<\/p>\n
658<\/span><\/p>\n
(b)  The  period of such notice shall be one  month,  unless
\notherwise agreed to by the Government and by the  Government
\nservant.”\n<\/p>\n
 Quasi-permanent service is defined in-the rules and it\t is
\nclear  that the petitioner does not come within that  class.
\nIt  is also an undisputed fact that there was  no  agreement
\nbetween\t the petitioner and Government regarding the  period
\nof the notice.\tTherefore, according to this rule, which was
\na term in the petitioner’s contract of further service,\t his
\nservices  were\tliable to termination at any  time  by’\t one
\nmonth’s\t notice in writing.  This notice was given  on\t25th
\nNovember,  1950,  and he was told that\this  services  would
\nterminate  on  the expiry of one month\tfrom  1st  December,
\n1950.\n<\/p>\n
 A large field was covered in the course of the\t arguments,
\nand  had  the matter not been re-argued we  would,  for\t the
\npetitioner’s  satisfaction, have dealt with the\t contentions
\nraised\tmore fully than will be necessary now  that  counsel
\nhas appeared.\n<\/p>\n
 The  petition is under article 32(1) of  the  Constitution
\nand  so it must be shown that a fundamental right  has\tbeen
\ninfringed.  It was argued that the rights infringed are\t the
\nones conferred by articles 14 and 16(1).\n<\/p>\n
 Taking\t article  14  first,  it must  be  shown  that\tthe
\n,petitioner  has been discriminated against in the  exercise
\nor enjoyment of some legal right which is open to others who
\nare similarly situated.\t The rights which he says have\tbeen
\ninfringed are those confered by article 31 1. He says he has
\neither\tbeen dismissed or removed from service\twithout\t the
\nsafeguards  which  that article confers.   In  our  opinion,
\narticle\t 31 1 has no application because this is  neither  a
\ndismissal nor a removal from service, nor is it a  reduction
\nin rank.  It is an ordinary case of a contract being  termi-
\nnated by notice under one of its clauses.\n<\/p>\n
 The  services\tin India have long  been  afforded  certain
\nstatutory   guarantees\tand  safeguards\t against   arbitrary
\ndismissal or reduction in rank Under
\n659<\/span>
\nsection\t 240  of  the Government of  India  Act,  1935,\t the
\nsafeguards  were  limited to those two\tcases.\t Under.\t the
\npresent Constitution, a third was added, namely removal from
\nservice.   In  order to understand  the\t difference  between
\n“dismissal” and “removal” from service, it will be necessary
\nto turn to the Rule,; which governed, and with modifications
\nstill govern, the “services” in India because of article 313
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
 Part  XII of the Civil Services  (Classification,  Control
\nand  Appeal)  Rules  relating  to  Conduct  and\t  Discipline
\nincludes  rule\t49 which sets out the various  penalties  to
\nwhich  a  member  of  the  services  can  be  subjected\t for
\nindiscipline  and misconduct.  They are seven in number\t and
\ninclude censure, suspension, reduction in rank, removal from
\nservice\t and  dismissal\t from  service.\t  The  Act  of\t1935
\nselected  only\ttwo of these possible penalties\t as  serious
\nenough\tto merit statutory safeguards, namely  reduction  in
\nrank  and  dismissal from service.   ‘The  Constitution\t has
\nadded  a third to the list.  The distinction which is  drawn
\nbetween\t the  two is explained in rule 49.  There  is  first
\nremoval from service “which does not disqualify from  future
\nemployment ” and there is next dismissal from service “which
\nordinarily disqualifies from future employment.”
\nThen follows an Explanation:\n<\/p>\n
The discharge-\n<\/p>\n
  (c)\tof a person engaged under contract,  in\t accordance
\nwith  the terms of his contract, does not amount to  removal
\nor dismissal within the meaning of this rule.”
\n  These\t terms are used in the same sense in  article  3ll.
\nIt  follows that the article has no application here and  so
\nno  question of discrimination arises, for the\t“law”  whose
\nprotection the petitioner seeks has no application to him.
\n There\twas no compulsion on the petitioner to\tenter  into
\nthe  contract he did.  He was as free under the law  as\t any
\nother  person to accept or to reject the
\n660<\/span>
\noffer which was made to him.  Having accepted, he  still has
\nopen to him all the right-, and remedies available to  other
\npersons similarly situated -to enforce any rights under\t his
\ncontract  which have been denied to him, assuming there\t are
\nany,  and to pursue in the ordinary courts of the land\tsuch
\nremedies for a breach as are open to him to exactly the same
\nextent as other persons similarly situated.  He has not been
\ndiscriminated  against\tand  he\t has  not  been\t denied\t the
\nprotection of any laws which others similarly situated could
\nclaim.\tThe remedy of a writ is misconceived.
\n Article  16(1) is equally inapplicable.  The whole  matter
\nrests  in  contract.  When the petitioner’s  first  contract
\n(the  five year one) came to an end, he was not a  permanent
\nGovernment  servant and Government was not bound  either  to
\nre-employ  him or to continue him in service.  On the  other
\nhand, it was open to Government to make him the offer it did
\nof  a  continuation  of his employment on  a  temporary\t and
\ncontractual basis.  Though the employment was continued,  it
\nwas  in point of fact, and in the eyes of the law,  under  a
\nnew and fresh contract which was quite separate and distinct
\nfrom  the old even though many of its terms were  the  same.
\nArticle\t 16(1)\tdeals with equality of\topportunity  in\t all
\nmatters relating to employment or appointment to any  office
\nunder  the  State.  The petitioner has not been\t denied\t any
\nopportunity  of employment or of appointment.  He  has\tbeen
\ntreated\t just  like  any other person to whom  an  offer  of
\ntemporary  employment under these conditions was made.\t His
\ngrievance,   when   analysed,  is  not\t one   of   personal
\ndifferentiation\t but  is  against  an  offer  of   temporary
\nemployment   on\t special  terms\t as  opposed  to   permanent
\nemployment.   But  of  course  the  State  can\tenter\tinto
\ncontracts  of temporary employment and impose special  terms
\nin  each case, provided they are not inconsistent  with\t the
\nConstitution, and those who choose to accept those terms and
\nenter into the contract are bound by them, even as the State
\nis  bound.   When  the employment  is  permanent  there\t are
\ncertain statutory guarantees but in the absence of
\n661<\/span>
\nany   such  limitations\t government  is,  subject   to\t the
\nqualification  mentioned  above, as free  to  make  special,
\ncontracts of, service with temporary employees, engaged\t in,
\nworks of a temporary nature, as any other employer.
\n Various  matters relating to the merits of the\t case  were
\nreferred  to  but we express no opinion\t about\twhether\t the
\npetitioner  has other rights which he can enforce  in  other
\nways.\tWe are dealing here with a writ under article 32  to
\nenforce a fundamental right and the only point we decide  is
\nthat no fundamental right has been infringed.
\n When  the  matter was first argued we had decided  not\t to
\nmake  any order about costs but now that the petitioner\t has
\npersisted  in  reopening the case and  calling\tthe  learned
\nAttorney-General  here\tfor  a\tsecond\ttime,  we  have\t  no
\nalternative but to dismiss the petition with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the petitioner: Bajinder Narain.
\nAgent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 250, 1953 SCR 655 Author: V Bose Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: SATISH CHANDRA ANAND Vs. RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/1953 […]<\/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-14083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSatish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - 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\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T16:35:14+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T16:35:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"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\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\",\"name\":\"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T16:35:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953\"}]},{\"@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":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - 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\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T16:35:14+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953","datePublished":"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T16:35:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953"},"wordCount":1699,"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\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953","name":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T16:35:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-chandra-anand-vs-the-union-of-india-on-13-march-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953"}]},{"@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\/14083","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=14083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}