{"id":15496,"date":"2002-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-12T07:16:08","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T01:46:08","slug":"v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, Y.K. Sabharwal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (crl.) 169  of  2001\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nV.C. MOHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/03\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nUmesh C. Banerjee &amp; Y.K. Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Banerjee, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhile it is true that law Courts detaste the very concept of<br \/>\ndetention without trial and do not favour the same, but the<br \/>\nconstitutional sanction of preventive detention cannot in any way<br \/>\nbe decried having regard to the prevalent conditions  social and<br \/>\neconomic.   The scheme as envisaged by the founding fathers,<br \/>\nhowever, has its rigours as well and subject to the guarantees as<br \/>\nenshrined in Part III of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>Preventive detention admittedly is an &#8216;invasion of personal<br \/>\nliberty&#8217; and it is a duty cast on to the law Courts to satisfy itself in<br \/>\nregard to the circumstances under which such a preventive<br \/>\ndetention has been ordered  in the event, however, the same does<br \/>\nnot conform to the requirements of the concept of justice as is<br \/>\navailable in the justice delivery system of the country, the law<br \/>\nCourts would not shirk of its responsibility to provide relief to the<br \/>\nperson concerned.   The guardian-angel of the Constitution stand<br \/>\npoised with a  responsibility to zealously act as a watchdog so that<br \/>\ninjustice does not occur : Let us not be understood to mean<br \/>\nhowever that there ought to be any overzealousness since the same<br \/>\nmay lend assistance to a situation which is otherwise not<br \/>\ncompatible with social good and benefit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Adverting at this stage to the facts of the matter, as is evident<br \/>\nfrom the  present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the<br \/>\nConstitution, challenging an order of detention dated 1st March,<br \/>\n2001 under Section 3(1) (i) of the Conservation of Foreign<br \/>\nExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 it<br \/>\nappears that the petitioner is presently confined in Central Prison,<br \/>\nChennai, Tamil Nadu and it is this detention which the petitioner<br \/>\ncontended is without the authority of law and constitute an<br \/>\ninfringement of his guaranteed fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>The reason for detention has been and as recorded by the<br \/>\nDepartment is that the Bill of Entry No.235337 dated 19.7.2000<br \/>\nwas filed in the name of M\/s Goutham  Enterprises for clearance of<br \/>\n300 numbers of ACER CD ROM drive 50X by Customs House<br \/>\nAgents, M\/s Sanjay Forwarders (P) Ltd.\t According to the<br \/>\nDepartment this Bill of Entry was filed in the name of M\/s<br \/>\nGoutham Enterprises but the latter expressly intimated the<br \/>\ndepartment stating that they did not place any order for import<br \/>\npurposes.   The department made an investigation and the goods<br \/>\nwere seized under the provisions of Customs Act on 24.7.2000.<br \/>\nThe total CIF value according to the department was<br \/>\nRs.43,53,189\/- and Rs.57,87,200\/- was the market value.\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner appeared before the Customs Department on<br \/>\n24.7.2000 and the officers detained him and obtained the<br \/>\nstatements and was subsequently arrested on 25.7.2000 for an<br \/>\noffence under Sections 132 and 135 of Customs Act.   The<br \/>\nprincipal allegation against the petitioner\/detenu  being<br \/>\nmisdeclaration in the Bill of Entry. The petitioner\/detenu however<br \/>\nwas remanded to judicial custody on 26.7.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently, the detenu was enlarged on bail by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11.8.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Department after the completion of investigation issued<br \/>\na show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962<br \/>\non 19.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>Significantly, though the incident noticed above took place<br \/>\non 24.7.2000 and other important documents have come into<br \/>\nexistence immediately thereafter, the detaining authority did not<br \/>\npass the detention order immediately but only after a lapse of about<br \/>\nseven months, i.e. on 1.3.2000. During this interregnum, however,<br \/>\nthe detenu admittedly did not indulge in any illegal activities and it<br \/>\nis on this context Mr. Mani, learned advocate appearing in support<br \/>\nof  the petition with his usual eloquence contended that the<br \/>\nincident of 24th July, 2000 had\t become stale and irrelevant and it<br \/>\nis too remote in point of time and as such question of there being<br \/>\nany detention order on the basis thereof would not arise.   Mr.<br \/>\nMani further contended upon reference to the fact situation as<br \/>\nadverted herein before in this judgment that the detenu was<br \/>\narrested on 25.7.2000 for  offences under Sections 132 and 135 of<br \/>\nCustoms Act and was remanded to judicial custody on 26.7.2000.<br \/>\nThe detenu was however enlarged on bail by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO.III) on 11.8.2000<br \/>\nand the Department after completing the investigation issued the<br \/>\nrequired show-cause notice on 19.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>The factual score thus lends a substantial credence to the<br \/>\nsubmissions of Mr. Mani as regards the charges being too stale to<br \/>\nbe taken recourse to in the matter of issuance of the order of<br \/>\ndetention on 1st March, 2001 more so, having regard to the<br \/>\nadmitted factum of non-involvement of the detenu in any illegal<br \/>\nactivity and thus consequently too remote as well in point of time<br \/>\nto be the basis of an order of detention.   .\n<\/p>\n<p>It is in elaboration of his submissions Mr. Mani contended<br \/>\nthat once the show-cause notice has been issued, there cannot be<br \/>\nany manner of doubt that the investigation is complete, but in the<br \/>\ncontextual facts the detaining authority has failed to apply its mind<br \/>\nas regards the issue of unreasonable delay in passing the order of<br \/>\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n<p>Incidentally, applicability of the Conservation of Foreign<br \/>\nExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act envisages<br \/>\nissuance of the detention order upon recording of  satisfaction that<br \/>\nin the event the detenu is allowed to remain at large, the latter will<br \/>\nindulge in such activities and that normal criminal law of the<br \/>\ncountry\t would not have the desired effect of  effectively<br \/>\npreventing the detenu from indulging in such activities\t it is on<br \/>\nthis score Mr. Mani submitted that by reason of the factum of  long<br \/>\nlapse of time, the question of applicability of the provisions of the<br \/>\nAct would not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>We would like to record, however, another more important<br \/>\nfeature at this juncture:  On an application before the Settlement<br \/>\nCommission under Section 127-B of the Customs Act filed by the<br \/>\ndetenu on 8.2.2001 the Settlement Commission on 15.2.2001 after<br \/>\nhearing the applicants and the Department, was pleased to admit<br \/>\nthe applications of the detenu\tand passed an order directing the<br \/>\ndetenu to make payment of additional duty of Rs.11,56,803\/-<br \/>\nwithin 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.\tApart<br \/>\ntherefrom, the Commission further observed that the Commission<br \/>\nshall have the exclusive jurisdiction on the case of the detenu, in<br \/>\nterms of Section 127-F (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to exercise<br \/>\nthe powers and perform the functions of any officer of customs, to<br \/>\nthe exclusion of all other officers of customs and it is on this score<br \/>\nthat Mr. Mani contended and if we may say so, rightly, that both<br \/>\nthe application and  the order of the Settlement Commission,<br \/>\nSouthern Bench, Chennai dated 15.2.2001 ought to have been<br \/>\nplaced before the Detaining Authority  The records however<br \/>\ndepict otherwise :  Neither the application nor the order passed<br \/>\nthereon did see the light of the day before the Detaining Authority.<br \/>\nThere is no manner of doubt that the documents mentioned above<br \/>\nare not only important but of definite impact in the matter of<br \/>\ndetention and having a bearing on to the issue.\t Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, there thus stands a bounden obligation to place the<br \/>\nsame before the Detaining Authority for fair play  and justice.\t The<br \/>\nsponsoring authority conveniently kept it to itself a very relevant<br \/>\nmaterial which could have tilted the scale before the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority.  Needless to record\tthat the sponsoring authority was<br \/>\nable to place the letter from the Special Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nregarding the condition of bail relaxation of the detenu dated<br \/>\n28.2.2001, but failed to place the orders of the Settlement<br \/>\nCommission dated 8.2.2001 and 15.2.2001.  Is it a lapse<br \/>\nunintended or a deliberate failure?  The learned senior advocate<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents however hadn&#8217;t had any answer to<br \/>\nthe same.  The factum of non-placement of relevant documents, in<br \/>\nour view, has had a serious effect and definite\t inroad to<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s liberty without application of mind.   Non-placement<br \/>\nof the order of payment of additional duty of Rs.11,56,803\/- within<br \/>\n30 days from the receipt of the order of the Commission has not<br \/>\nonly transgressed the rights of the petitioner but in our view speaks<br \/>\na volume about the conduct of the officials rendering the<br \/>\nproceeding before the Detaining Authority vitiated and thus turned<br \/>\nout to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>By reason of the aforesaid, we feel it expedient not to express<br \/>\nany opinion as regards the question of delay rendering the charges<br \/>\nstale or being too remote.  A statute has been engrafted in the<br \/>\nStatute Book but that does not, however, mean and imply that the<br \/>\nconcerned official would be at liberty to whittle down the liberty of<br \/>\nthe citizens of the country.   The constitutional sanction for<br \/>\npreventive detention cannot be said to be without any limitation<br \/>\nand apprehending such a conduct of the concerned officials, the<br \/>\nfounding fathers probably laid down its safeguards from the<br \/>\nmisuse of the powers as conferred.   The hallmark of the concept of<br \/>\njustice, as  is available in the justice delivery system of the country<br \/>\nis that the conduct of the Detaining Authority or as a matter of fact<br \/>\nany governmental authority ought to be fair and reasonable.   The<br \/>\naccepted methodology of governmental working  should always be<br \/>\nin tune with the concept of fairness and not de hors the same  a<br \/>\nperson is being placed under detention without trial and there is<br \/>\nneither any  scope for\toverzealous nor\t acting in a manner without<br \/>\ndue and proper\tapplication of mind  in either of the situation law<br \/>\nCourts should be able to protect the individual from the<br \/>\nadministrative ipse dixit.   The draconian concept of law has had<br \/>\nits departure quite some time back and rule of law is the order of<br \/>\nthe day.   It is this rule of law which should prompt the law Courts<br \/>\nto act in a manner fair and reasonable having due regard to the<br \/>\nnature of the offences and vis-a-vis the liberty of the citizens.   The<br \/>\norder as passed by the Settlement Commission on 15th February,<br \/>\n2001 directing the detenu to make payment of the additional duty<br \/>\nas noticed above, cannot but be termed to be a very relevant<br \/>\nmaterial having a direct impact on the issue and in the event of<br \/>\nnon-placement of the same before the detaining authority, question<br \/>\nof affirmation of the detention order would not arise.\t The<br \/>\nobservations of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1722242\/\">Rajindra\tv. Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\nNagpur Division &amp; Anr.<\/a>\t(1994 (2) Supp. SCC 716) recording the<br \/>\nneed and requirement of the Central Government officials to be<br \/>\nalive to the situation cannot but be said to apposite in the context.<br \/>\n Incidentally, the other issue pertains to delayed consideration<br \/>\nof the representation and it is on this score, a Three-Judge Bench<br \/>\ndecision in <a href=\"\/doc\/468004\/\">Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu &amp; Anr.<\/a> (1999 (1)<br \/>\nSCC 417) unequivocally condemned the delay for even five days<br \/>\nin the manner as below:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We are, therefore, of the opinion that the<br \/>\ndelay from 9.2.1998 to 14.2.1998 remains<br \/>\nunexplained and such unexplained delay has<br \/>\nvitiated further detention of the detenu.   The<br \/>\ncorollary thereof is that further detention must<br \/>\nnecessarily be disallowed.   We, therefore, allow<br \/>\nthis appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.<br \/>\nWe direct the appellant-detenu to be set at large<br \/>\nforthwith.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. Verma, learned senior advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent-State made a frantic bid to contend the enormity and<br \/>\ngravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner: In our view,<br \/>\nhowever, the same does not require further scrutiny by reason of<br \/>\nthe express deprecation of the same by this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/629884\/\">Kundanbhai<br \/>\nDulabhai Shaikh v. Distt. Magistrate, Ahmedabad &amp; Ors.<\/a> (1996(3)<br \/>\nSCC 195).\n<\/p>\n<p>On the question of representation, the records depict that the<br \/>\nsame was sent to the President of India\t on 10th April, 2001 and the<br \/>\nsame was sent to the Ministry of Finance on August 16, 2001<br \/>\nsome explanation has been put forth, but we need not, however,<br \/>\ndetain ourselves in dealing with the same since we wish to state<br \/>\nthat non-placement of relevant materials before the detaining<br \/>\nauthority by the sponsoring authority is not only a lapse but a<br \/>\nserious lapse on the part of the officials resulting in the order of<br \/>\ndetention to be declared unlawful and illegal and thus resultantly<br \/>\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the view as above, the writ petition succeeds.   The<br \/>\ndetention order stands quashed and set aside.\tV.C. Mohan son of<br \/>\nV. Velayutham be released forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>J.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Umesh C. Banerjee)<\/p>\n<p>J.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Y.K. Sabharwal)<\/p>\n<p>March 1, 2002.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 Author: Banerjee Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, Y.K. Sabharwal CASE NO.: Writ Petition (crl.) 169 of 2001 PETITIONER: V.C. MOHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/03\/2002 BENCH: Umesh C. Banerjee &amp; Y.K. Sabharwal JUDGMENT: Banerjee, [&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-15496","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>V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - 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\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-12T01:46:08+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\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T01:46:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2049,\"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\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\",\"name\":\"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T01:46:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - 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\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-12T01:46:08+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\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T01:46:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002"},"wordCount":2049,"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\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002","name":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T01:46:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-c-mohan-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.C. Mohan vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 1 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/15496","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=15496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}