{"id":155242,"date":"1960-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960"},"modified":"2015-07-27T07:01:00","modified_gmt":"2015-07-27T01:31:00","slug":"manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","title":{"rendered":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR  418, \t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 343<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gupta, K.C. Das, Dayal, Raghubar, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMANOHAR LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n11\/11\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR  418\t\t  1961 SCR  (2) 343\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1961 SC1559\t (9)\n APL\t    1962 SC 316\t (56)\n\n\nACT:\nTrade  Employees--Close\t day--Enactment,  if  violative\t  of\nfundamental\trights--Workers'       Welfare--Protection--\nRestriction,  if unreasonable--Punjab Trade  Employees\tAct,\n1940, (Punj.  X of 1940) s. 7 (1)\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\twho was a shopkeeper was convicted  for\t the\nsecond\ttime  by  the  Additional  District  Magistrate\t for\ncontravening  the provisions of s. 7(1) of the Punjab  Trade\nEmployees Act, 1940, under which he was required to keep his\nshop  closed on the day which he had himself chosen as\ta  \"\nclose  day \". He raised the plea that the Act did not  apply\nto  his\t shop  as he did not employ any\t stranger  but\tthat\nhimself\t alone worked in it and that the application  of  s.\n7(1)  to  his  shop would be violative\tof  his\t fundamental\nrights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and (g) of the\tConstitution\nand  also  that the restriction imposed was  not  reasonable\nwithin\tArt.  19(6)  as it was not in the  interest  of\t the\ngeneral\n344\npublic.\t  The  High  Court  dismissed  his  application\t for\nrevision  of  the  Magistrate's\t order.\t  On  appeal  on   a\ncertificate of the High Court,\nHeld, that the main object of the Act was the welfare of the\nemployees  and\tto protect their as well as  the  employers'\nhealth\t by  preventing\t them  from  over  work.    Such   a\nrestriction being in the interest of the general public\t was\nreasonable   within  the  meaning  of  Art.  19(6)  of\t the\nConstitution.\nThe  provisions of s. 7(1) were constitutionally  valid\t and\nwere  justified as for securing\t administrative\t convenience\nand  avoiding evasion of those provisions designed  for\t the\nprotection of the workmen.\nManohar Lal v. The State, [1951] S.C.R. 671, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CRIMINAL   APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal\tAppeal\t No.<br \/>\n173\/1956.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated May 23,  1956,  of<br \/>\nthe Punjab High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1058\/1954.<br \/>\nK.   L. Arora, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.<br \/>\n1960.  November 11.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nAYYANGAR J.-This appeal on a certificate under Arts. 132 and<br \/>\n134(1)\tof  the Constitution granted by the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nPunjab raises for consideration the constitutionality of  s.<br \/>\n7(1) of the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940.<br \/>\nThe  appellant-Manohar Lal&#8211;has a shop at Ferozepore  Cantt.<br \/>\nin which business is carried on under the name and style  of<br \/>\nI  Imperial  Book  Depot&#8217;.  Section 7 of  the  Punjab  Trade<br \/>\nEmployees Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act), enacts:<br \/>\n&#8221; 7. (1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, every\tshop<br \/>\nor  commercial establishment shall remain closed on a  close<br \/>\nday.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)(i).\t  The  choice  of a close day shall  rest  with\t the<br \/>\noccupier of a shop or commercial establishment and shall  be<br \/>\nintimated  to the prescribed authority within two months  of<br \/>\nthe date on which this Act comes into force.&#8221;<br \/>\nto extract the provision relevant to this appeal.  The<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">345<\/span><br \/>\nappellant had chosen Friday as &#8221; the close day &#8220;, i.e.,\t the<br \/>\nday of the week on which his shop would remain closed.\t The<br \/>\nInspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments, Ferozepore<br \/>\nCircle, visited the appellant&#8217;s shop on Friday, the 29th  of<br \/>\nJanuary,  1954, and found the shop open and the\t appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nson selling articles.  Obviously, if s. 7(1) were valid, the<br \/>\nappellant was guilty of a contravention of its terms and  he<br \/>\nwas  accordingly prosecuted in the Court of  the  Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate, Ferozepore, for an offence under s.  16<br \/>\nof the Act which ran:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;  Subject  to\tthe other provisions of\t this  Act,  whoever<br \/>\ncontravenes    any    of    the\t   provisions\t of\tthis<br \/>\nAct  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  shall<br \/>\nbe liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding\t twenty-five<br \/>\nrupees\tfor  the first offence and one\thundred\t rupees\t for<br \/>\nevery subsequent offence &#8220;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant admitted the facts but he pleaded that the Act<br \/>\nwould not apply to his shop or establishment for the  reason<br \/>\nthat  he had engaged no strangers as employees but that\t the<br \/>\nentire work in the shop was being done by himself and by the<br \/>\nmembers of his family, and that to hold that s. 7(1) of\t the<br \/>\nAct  would  apply to his shop would be\tunconstitutional  as<br \/>\nviolative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts.\t 14,<br \/>\n19(1)(f)  and  (g)  of\tthe  Constitution.   The  additional<br \/>\nDistrict   Magistrate  rejected\t the  plea  raised  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant regarding the constitutionality of s. 7(1) in\t its<br \/>\napplication to shops where no &#8221; employees &#8221; were engaged and<br \/>\nsentenced  him to a fine of Rs. 100 and simple\timprisonment<br \/>\nin  default of payment of the fine (since the appellant\t had<br \/>\nbeen  convicted once before).  The appellant applied to\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Punjab to revise this order, but the  Revision<br \/>\nwas dismissed.\tThe learned Judges, however, granted a\tcer-<br \/>\ntificate of fitness which has enabled the appellant to\tfile<br \/>\nthe appeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Though the validity of s. 7(1) of the Act was challenged  in<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  on various grounds,  learned\tCounsel\t who<br \/>\nappeared before us rested his attack on one point.  He urged<br \/>\nthat the provision violated the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">44<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">346<\/span><br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s  right  to\tcarry  on  his\ttrade  or   business<br \/>\nguaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) and that the restriction imposed<br \/>\nwas  not reasonable within Art. 19(6) because it was not  in<br \/>\nthe  interest of the general public.  Learned  Counsel\tdrew<br \/>\nour attention to the long title of the Act reading &#8221; An\t Act<br \/>\nto limit the hours of work of Shop Assistants and Commercial<br \/>\nEmployees  and to make certain regulations concerning  their<br \/>\nholidays, wages and terms of service &#8221; and pointed out\tthat<br \/>\nthe insistence on the appellant to close his shop, in  which<br \/>\nthere were no &#8221; employees &#8220;, was really outside the  purview<br \/>\nof  the\t legislation and could not be said to  subserve\t the<br \/>\npurposes  for  which  the Act was enacted.   In\t short,\t the<br \/>\nsubmission of the learned Counsel was that the provision for<br \/>\nthe  compulsory closure of his shop for one day in the\tweek<br \/>\nserved\tno interests of the general public and that  it\t was<br \/>\nunduly and unnecessarily restrictive of his freedom to carry<br \/>\non a lawful trade or business, otherwise in accordance\twith<br \/>\nlaw,  as he thought best and in a manner or mode  most\tcon-<br \/>\nvenient or profitable.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  are clearly of the opinion that the submissions  of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Counsel should be repelled.  The long title of\t the<br \/>\nAct  extracted earlier and on which learned  Counsel  placed<br \/>\nconsiderable  reliance as a guide for the  determination  of<br \/>\nthe  scope  of\tthe  Act  and  the  policy  underlying\t the<br \/>\nlegislation,  no doubt, indicates the main purposes  of\t the<br \/>\nenactment   but\t cannot,  obviously,  control  the   express<br \/>\noperative  provisions  of the Act, such as for\texample\t the<br \/>\nterms  of s. 7(1).  Nor is the learned counsel right in\t his<br \/>\nargument that the terms of s. 7(1) are irrelevant to  secure<br \/>\nthe  purposes  or to subserve the underlying policy  of\t the<br \/>\nAct.  The ratio of the legislation is social interest in the<br \/>\nhealth of the worker who forms an essential part of the com-<br \/>\nmunity\tand  in whose welfare, therefore, the  community  is<br \/>\nvitally interested.  It is in the light of this purpose that<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Act have to be scrutinized.  Thus,, S.<br \/>\n3 which lays down the restrictions subject to which alone &#8220;I<br \/>\nyoung persons &#8220;, defined as those under the age of 14, could<br \/>\nbe  employed  in any shop or  commercial  establishment,  is<br \/>\nobviously with a view to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">347<\/span><br \/>\nensuring  the health of the rising generation  of  citizens.<br \/>\nSection 4 is concerned with imposing restrictions  regarding<br \/>\nthe  hours  of work which might be  extracted  from  workers<br \/>\nother than &#8221; young persons &#8220;. Section 4(1) enacts:<br \/>\n&#8221; Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall  be<br \/>\nemployed  about\t the  business\tof  a  shop  or\t  commercial<br \/>\nestablishment  for  more  than the  normal  maximum  working<br \/>\nhours, that is to say, fifty-four hours in any one week\t and<br \/>\nten hours in any one day.\n<\/p>\n<p>bringing the law in India as respects maximum working  hours<br \/>\nin line with the norms suggested by the International Labour<br \/>\nConvention.  Sub-clauses (4) and (5)\tof this section\t are<br \/>\nof some relevance to the matter now\tunder consideration:<br \/>\n&#8221; (4) No person who has to the knowledge of the occupier  of<br \/>\na shop or commercial establishment been previously  employed<br \/>\non any day in a factory shall be employed on that day  about<br \/>\nthe  business of the shop or commercial establishment for  a<br \/>\nlonger period than will, together with the time during which<br \/>\nhe has been previously employed on that day in the  factory,<br \/>\ncomplete the number of hours permitted by this Act.<br \/>\n(5)  No\t person shall work about the business of a  shop  or<br \/>\ncommercial establishment or two or more shops or  commercial<br \/>\nestablishments\tor a shop or commercial establishment and  a<br \/>\nfactory\t in  excess  of the period during which\t he  may  be<br \/>\nlawfully employed under this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It  will be seen that while under sub-cl. (4) employers\t are<br \/>\ninjuncted from employing persons who had already worked\t for<br \/>\nthe   maximum\tnumber\tof  permitted\thours\tin   another<br \/>\nestablishment,\tsub-cl.\t (5) lays an embargo on\t the  worker<br \/>\nhimself from injuring his health by overwork in an endeavour<br \/>\nto  earn more.\tFrom this it would be apparent that the\t Act<br \/>\nis concerned-and properly concerned-with the welfare of\t the<br \/>\nworker\tand seeks to prevent injury to it, not\tmerely\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  action  of\t the employer but from his  own.   In  other<br \/>\nwords, the worker is prevented from attempting to earn\tmore<br \/>\nwages by working longer hours than is good<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">348<\/span><br \/>\nfor him.  If such a condition is necessary or proper in\t the<br \/>\ncase  of  a  worker,  there does not  seem  to\tbe  anything<br \/>\nunreasonable  in applying the same or similar principles  to<br \/>\nthe  employer  who works on his own business.\tThe  learned<br \/>\nJudges of the High Court have rested their decision on\tthis<br \/>\npart  of  the case on the reasoning that the  terms  of\t the<br \/>\nimpugned section might be justified on the ground that it is<br \/>\ndesigned  in  the  interest  of the owner  of  the  shop  or<br \/>\nestablishment  himself and that his health and welfare is  a<br \/>\nmatter\tof interest not only to himself but to\tthe  general<br \/>\npublic\tThe legislation is in effect the exercise of  social<br \/>\ncontrol over the manner in which business should be  carried<br \/>\non-regulated in the interests of the health and welfare\t not<br \/>\nmerely\tof those employed in it but of all those engaged  in<br \/>\nit.   A\t restriction  imposed with a  view  to\tsecure\tthis<br \/>\npurpose\t would,\t in our opinion, be clearly  saved  by\tArt.<br \/>\n19(6).\n<\/p>\n<p>Apart  from  this,  the constitutionality  of  the  impugned<br \/>\nprovision  might be sustained on another ground also,  viz.,<br \/>\nwith  a\t view to avoid evasion\tof  provisions\tspecifically<br \/>\ndesigned for the protection of workmen employed.  It may  be<br \/>\npointed\t out  that  acts  innocent  in\tthemselves  may\t  be<br \/>\nprohibited  and\t the restrictions in that  regard  would  be<br \/>\nreasonable,  if\t the  same  were  necessary  to\t secure\t the<br \/>\nefficient enforcement of valid provisions.  The inclusion of<br \/>\na reasonable margin to ensure effective enforcement will not<br \/>\nstamp a law otherwise valid as within legislative competence<br \/>\nwith   the   character\tof  unconstitutionality\t  as   being<br \/>\nunreasonable.  The provisions could, therefore, be justified<br \/>\nas  for\t securing  administrative convenience  and  for\t the<br \/>\nproper enforcement of it without evasion.  As pointed out by<br \/>\nthis  Court  in\t Manohar  Lal v. The  State  (1)  (when\t the<br \/>\nappellant   challenged\tthe  validity  of   this   identical<br \/>\nprovision but on other grounds):\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;  The legislature may have felt it necessary, in  order  to<br \/>\nreduce\tthe  possibilities  of\tevasion\t to  a\tminimum,  to<br \/>\nencroach upon the liberties of those who would not otherwise<br \/>\nhave been affected&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; To require a shopkeeper,\t who<br \/>\nemploys one or two men,<br \/>\n(1)  [1951] S.C.R. 671, 675.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">349<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to  close and permit his rival, who employs perhaps a  dozen<br \/>\nmembers\t of his family, to remain open, clearly\t places\t the<br \/>\nformer at a grave commercial disadvantage.  To permit such a<br \/>\ndistinction  might well engender discontent and in  the\t end<br \/>\nreact upon the relations between employer and employed.&#8221;<br \/>\nWe have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the attack on<br \/>\nthe  constitutionality\tof s. 7(1) of the Act.\t The  appeal<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 418, 1961 SCR (2) 343 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gupta, K.C. Das, Dayal, Raghubar, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: MANOHAR LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/11\/1960 [&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-155242","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>Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - 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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-27T01:31:00+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\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T01:31:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\"},\"wordCount\":1723,\"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\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\",\"name\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T01:31:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960\"}]},{\"@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":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - 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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-27T01:31:00+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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960","datePublished":"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T01:31:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960"},"wordCount":1723,"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\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960","name":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T01:31:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manohar-lal-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-11-november-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manohar Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 11 November, 1960"}]},{"@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\/155242","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=155242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}