{"id":158543,"date":"2009-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-05T13:19:36","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T07:49:36","slug":"a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:03\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.8701 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009\n\nA.Joel Poul Antony\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\nvs.\n\n1.The Union of India,\n  rep.by its Secretary,\n  Department of Home,\n  Ministry of Home,\n  Shastri Bhavan,\n  New Delhi-110 001.\n\n2.The Secretary,\n  Ministry of External Affairs,\n  The Government of India,\n  Shasthiri Bhavan,\n  New Delhi-110 001.\n\n3.The Secretary,\n  Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,\n  Shasthiri Bhavan,\n  New Delhi-100 001.\n\n4.The Secretary,\n  Board for Control of Cricket in India,\n  2nd Floor, Cricket Centre,\n  Wankhede Stadium, O-Road, Mumbai,\n  State of Maharashtra.\t\t       ... Respondents\n\t\n\t\tWrit petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting\nTest Matches and One Day Matches, besides 20\/20 Matches with Srilankan Cricket\nTeam scheduled to be conducted from 16.11.2009 to 27.12.2009 and in future and\nto pass any other orders.\n\n(Prayer amended as per the order, dated 16.11.2009,\nmade in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009)\n\n!For Petitioner\t    ... Mr.D.Muruganantham for\n\t\t\tMr.V.Manoharan\t\t\n^For Respondents    ... Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan,\n1 to 3\t\t        Assistant Solicitor General.\nFor Respondent-4    ... Mr.P.S.Raman (Advocate General) \t\t\t\n\t\t\tfor  Mr.P.R.Raman\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>         (Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN,J)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe petitioner by name A.Joel Poul Antony is a practising Advocate<br \/>\nof this Court.  He has filed this probono publico seeking a direction, in the<br \/>\nnature of writ, forbearing the Union of India and the Board for Control of<br \/>\nCricket in India (BCCI) from conducting \tTest Matches and One Day Matches,<br \/>\nbesides 20\/20 Matches, with Srilankan Cricket Team, scheduled to be conducted<br \/>\nfrom 16.11.2009 to 27.12.2009 and in future.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.Initially, the petitioner approached this Court for a similar<br \/>\nrelief when there was a proposal to sent Indian Cricket Team to Srilanka to play<br \/>\ntri-series cricket matches at Colombo, which were scheduled to be held on<br \/>\n11.09.2009 and 12.09.2009.  Though this Court issued notice on 01.09.2009, by an<br \/>\norder dated 09.09.2009, rejected the interim relief seeking to restrain BCCI<br \/>\nfrom sending Indian Cricket Team to Srilanka to play the tri-series.  By the<br \/>\ntime the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the above said tri-series<br \/>\nmatches were concluded and therefore the writ petition could not be decided on<br \/>\nmerits.   Therefore, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2009 seeking to amend<br \/>\nthe prayer in view of the subsequent decision of the respondents to allow<br \/>\nSrilankan Cricket Team to play matches in India and that petition was ordered by<br \/>\nthis Court on 16.11.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.According to the petitioner, there is a gross violation of Human<br \/>\nRights in Srilanka against the minority innocent Tamil Speaking people and, at<br \/>\nmany a time, not only India but also many other countries in the world condemned<br \/>\nsuch violation of human rights by the Government of Srilanka.  It is the further<br \/>\ngrievance of the petitioner that atrocities against the innocent minority Tamil<br \/>\nspeaking people still continues and under the guise of eradicating militants,<br \/>\nthe Srilankan Government had killed lakhs of innocent minority Tamil Speaking<br \/>\npeople and in that way, the Government of Srilanka had violated the basic and<br \/>\nfundamental rights and international laws.  It is further contended that massive<br \/>\nattack unleashed by the Srilankan Government, through its armed forces, was also<br \/>\non children and women, which was also condemned by the international<br \/>\ncommunities.  According to the petitioner, the above act of the Srilankan<br \/>\nGovernment displays their intention and ulterior motive to eliminate each and<br \/>\neveryone Srilankan Tamil and in that process, the Srilankan Government had<br \/>\nkilled more than 10 lakhs Tamil Speaking people, including children and pregnant<br \/>\nwomen.  It is also contended that instances are reported  that there were self-<br \/>\nimmolations by Tamilians in India to show their sympathy and solidarity to the<br \/>\nTamil Speaking People of Srilanka. Human Right violations were also noticed and<br \/>\nthe same were condemned by various countries.  Nevertheless, such violations are<br \/>\nstill continuing and such violations are largely reported in Media and Press.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.In the circumstances, according to the petitioner, it would be<br \/>\nonly proper for the Government of India not to allow the Srilankan Cricket Team<br \/>\nto play matches in India so as to show the total disapproval of inhuman<br \/>\ntreatment meted out to the Srilankan Tamils and, as the Government of India had<br \/>\nfailed not only in preventing the Indian Cricket Team from visiting Srilanka but<br \/>\nalso in preventing the Srilankan Team to come to India and also agreed to permit<br \/>\nthe Srilankan Cricket Team to play Test Matches, One Day Matches as well as<br \/>\n20\/20 Matches in India. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to invoke the<br \/>\nextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India for the relief sought for in the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.In support of the petition, Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner, extensively argued as to the plight of the<br \/>\nSrilankan Tamils, particularly their plight in the detention camps.  He would<br \/>\nsubmit that the policy of the Government should only be such to reflect the<br \/>\nwishes of a large number of people, be it related to national or international.<br \/>\nAs there is no dispute that not only a large number of people in India but also<br \/>\npeople around the world as well as various Organizations have condemned the<br \/>\natrocities unleashed on the Srilankan Tamils under the guise of eliminating<br \/>\nterrorism, the Central Government should not have permitted Srilankan Cricket<br \/>\nTeam to play matches in India.  Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nwould submit that the Court would certainly have the power of judicial review in<br \/>\nthe event the policy does not reflect the wishes of majority of the people.  The<br \/>\nCourt may also intervene and issue appropriate direction to the Government and<br \/>\nmore particularly in respect of the relief sought for in this petition, he<br \/>\nargued.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.We have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General, appearing<br \/>\nfor the 4th respondent, the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI).<br \/>\nLearned Advocate General had fairly submitted that as regard to the sufferings<br \/>\nof the Srilankan Tamils, as could be seen in the Newspapers and reports in<br \/>\nMedia, there cannot be any second opinion.  However, he opposed the petition and<br \/>\nsubmitted that the relief sought for in this petition cannot be ordered on two<br \/>\ngrounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>  \t\t7.Firstly, the Advocate General would submit that BCCI is not a<br \/>\nState or an instrumentality of the State  to be brought under Article 12 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.  In respect of the said submission, he would rely upon a<br \/>\nConstitution Bench decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (4)<br \/>\nSCC 649 &#8211; <a href=\"\/doc\/404603\/\">Zee Telefilms  vs. Union of India.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.Secondly, the learned Advocate General would submit that, in any<br \/>\ncase, as to whether Srilankan Cricket Team should be permitted to play cricket<br \/>\nmatches in India or not is a matter of policy taken by the Government keeping in<br \/>\nmind the relationship to be maintained with neighbouring countries and such<br \/>\npolicy decision is not amenable to judicial scrutiny.  In support of the said<br \/>\nsubmission, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nreported in AIR 1994 SC 1918 &#8211; <a href=\"\/doc\/60799\/\">S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.Having made those two submissions, learned Advocate General, would<br \/>\nfairly submit that he is not pressing the first submission relating to<br \/>\nmaintainability of the writ petition and so, the said issue can be left open.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General, would<br \/>\nsubmit that the Government of India has accorded permission to BCCI to conduct<br \/>\ntest series and one day matches in India, wherein Srilankan Cricket Team could<br \/>\nparticipate and such permission was accorded keeping in mind the policy of India<br \/>\nto maintain good relationship with other countries, particularly with<br \/>\nneighbouring countries.  The decision being one of a policy decision, the court<br \/>\nwould not intervene with such a policy decision.  In effect, he adopts the<br \/>\nargument made in this regard by the learned Advocate General.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.We have considered the respective submissions made by the counsel<br \/>\non either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.Firstly, we may point out that though the writ petition is<br \/>\nopposed by the respondents on the ground that it is not maintainable as against<br \/>\nBCCI, having regard to the latter submission made by the respondents, we leave<br \/>\nthe said issue left open to be considered in an appropriate case.  This leads us<br \/>\nto the next question as to the power of this Court to interfere with the policy<br \/>\nmatters of the Government, particularly external policy, under the guise of<br \/>\njudicial intervention.  In this context, we may mention that the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia is the supreme law of India and it lays down the framework designing<br \/>\nfundamental and political principles, establishing structure, procedures, powers<br \/>\nand duties of the Government.  It also spells out the Fundamental Rights,<br \/>\nDirective Principles of State Policies and duties of citizens.  The Constitution<br \/>\nhas recognised separation of powers among Legislature, Judiciary and Executive.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.As far as the power of the legislature, which is governing the<br \/>\nGovernment, is concerned, it has exclusively jurisdiction not only to enact laws<br \/>\nbut also to evolve policies concerning internal and also  external affairs.<br \/>\nThere may be instances where the Court would have jurisdiction to interfere with<br \/>\nsome of the policy decisions concerning internal matters, like in contractual<br \/>\nmatters, etc.  However, as far as the external policy is concerned, such policy<br \/>\nis evolved by the Government in exercise of its executive power keeping in mind<br \/>\nthe relationship to be maintained with other countries, more particularly with<br \/>\nneighbouring countries.  That being a policy of the Government, in our opinion,<br \/>\nthe scope of judicial intervention in regard to such policies will not be<br \/>\navailable to the courts.  We need not elaborate on this principle as it has been<br \/>\nsettled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court  in S.R.Bommai&#8217;s case,<br \/>\nprecisely in paragraph No.305.  While considering  the power of the Government<br \/>\nto issue proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution and with<br \/>\nreference to the policy of the Government in relation to external affairs, the<br \/>\nApex Court (majority view) has observed as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;305&#8230;.. We would rather adopt the formulation evolved by this court in<br \/>\nState of Rajasthan (AIR 1977 SC 1361), as we shall presently elaborate.  We also<br \/>\nrecognise, as did the House of Lords in C.C.S.U.  v.  Minister for the Civil<br \/>\nService (1985 AC 374) that there are certain areas including those elaborated<br \/>\ntherein where the court would leave the matter almost entirely to the<br \/>\nPresident\/Union Government.  The court would desist from entering those arenas,<br \/>\nbecause of the very nature of those functions.  They are not the matters which<br \/>\nthe court is equipped to deal with.  The court has never interfered in those<br \/>\nmatters because they do not admit of judicial review by their very nature.<br \/>\nMatters concerning foreign policy, relations with other countries, defence<br \/>\npolicy, power to enter into treaties with foreign powers, issues relating to war<br \/>\nand peace are some of the matters where the court would decline to entertain any<br \/>\npetition for judicial review. &#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.In the said judgment, it has been categorically held that the<br \/>\nCourt would desist from entering those arenas, because of the very nature of<br \/>\nthose functions and they are not the matters which the court is equipped to deal<br \/>\nwith.   The Apex Court has also indicated that those matters concerning foreign<br \/>\npolicy, relations with other countries, defence policy, power to enter into<br \/>\ntreaties with foreign powers, issues relating to war and peace are some of the<br \/>\nmatters where the court would decline to entertain any petition for judicial<br \/>\nreview.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15.This being the position of law, as held by the Apex Court, the<br \/>\ngrievance of the petitioner cannot be considered.  It is the specific stand of<br \/>\nthe Government of India that the Government has accorded permission to BCCI to<br \/>\nconduct test matches as well as one day matches wherein Srilankan Cricket Team<br \/>\ncan also participate and such permission was granted keeping in mind the policy<br \/>\nof the Government to maintain relationship with neighbouring countries.  The<br \/>\nsaid fact is not disputed.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the<br \/>\npresent writ petition cannot be ordered.  Accordingly the same is rejected as<br \/>\nthe scope of judicial review is not available to the petitioner.  No order as to<br \/>\ncosts.  Connected M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009 is also rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  Union of India,<br \/>\n  Department of Home,<br \/>\n  Ministry of Home,<br \/>\n  Shastri Bhavan,<br \/>\n  New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  Ministry of External Affairs,<br \/>\n  The Government of India,<br \/>\n  Shasthiri Bhavan,<br \/>\n  New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,<br \/>\n  Shasthiri Bhavan,<br \/>\n  New Delhi-100 001.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition (MD)No.8701 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2009 A.Joel Poul Antony &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The Union of India, rep.by its [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-05T07:49:36+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\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T07:49:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\",\"name\":\"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-05T07:49:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-05T07:49:36+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\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T07:49:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009"},"wordCount":1897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009","name":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-05T07:49:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-joel-poul-antony-vs-the-union-of-india-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Joel Poul Antony vs The Union Of India on 3 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/158543","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=158543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}