{"id":16237,"date":"2002-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002"},"modified":"2015-05-16T07:56:34","modified_gmt":"2015-05-16T02:26:34","slug":"shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 172<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 S.B. Sinha, C.J. <\/p>\n
 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alia questioned a
\nproceedings held in General Security Force Court. He also has prayed for a
\ndirection upon the respondents to pay unto him the full pay and allowances for the
\nperiod he was deployed on duty during the period of his suspension.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Before adverting to the contentions raised in the writ petition, the
\nfact of the matter in brief may be noticed.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioner joined the Punjab Armed Police as Constable. He
\nwas enrolled in the Border Security Force in the year 1967 in the rank of Head
\nConstable. At the relevant point of time, he was posted as Deputy Commandant.
\nIn May 1990, he was posted in 115 Bn. which was then deployed in South Bengal
\nFrontier of the Border Security Force.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The petitioner allegedly asked certain candidates to undergo
\nswimming exercises at Digberia, Distt. Barasat, West Bengal on 30th September
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
 5. In course of the said exercise, three Constables died of drowning
\nwhere after the petitioner was placed under suspension vide an order dated 19th
\nDecember 1991 which is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
 “Whereas a case against Shri. Thoru Ram
\n(IRLA No. 2776). Dy. Comdt. of 115 Bn BSF
\nBorder Security Force in respect of an offence for a
\ngrave act of criminal negligence, is under
\ninvestigation.\n<\/p>\n
 2. And whereas it is alleged that the said Shri
\nThoru Ram, Dy. Comdt. of, 115 Battalion of the
\nBorder Security Force and committed certain acts of
\nomission and commission by issuing illegal order
\non 30.9.91 to the members of the Force placed
\nunder his command to swim across a pond as a
\nmeasure of punishment which has resulted in the
\nunnatural death of Constables Manipal Singh, S.K.
\nChobey and Dalbir Singh on 30.9.91.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Now, therefore, the Central Government in
\nexercise of the powers conferred by Clause (i) of
\nRule 40-A of BSF Rules 1969 as amended hereby
\nplaces the said Shri Thoru Ram, Dy. Comdt., under
\nsuspension with immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is further ordered that during the period
\nthis order remains in force the said Shri Thoru Ram
\nDy. Comdt. shall not leave the Headquarters of 115
\nBn. BSF, without obtaining the permission of the
\ncompetent authority.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. However, on or about 14th January, 1992, he was taken back in
\nservice wherefor the following order was issued:\n<\/p>\n
  “As desired by Sector Headquarter Calcutta
\nvide their Msg. No. A\/4824 dated: 06 Jan’ 92 &
\nmsg. No. A\/4827 dated: 13 Jan 1992. The service
\nof Sh. Thoru Ram, DC will be utilized for static and
\nadministrative duties. He will not perform any
\nactive duty.”\n<\/p>\n
 7. However, the said order was modified by an order dated 17th
\nJanuary 1992 in terms whereof instead and in place of “for active duty” the words
\n“for operational duties” were to be substituted. According to the petitioner,
\nhowever, he had been deployed on full-fledged security duties which are
\nconsidered to be tough and arduous ones.\n<\/p>\n
 8. A charge-sheet dated 10th July 1992 was issued against the
\npetitioner in relation to the afore-mentioned incident dated 30th September, 1991,
\nwhich is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
 “CHARGE SHEET <\/p>\n
APPENDIX VI <\/p>\n
Rule 53 (2) <\/p>\n
 IRLA No. 2776 Shri Thoru Ram, Dy.\n<\/p>\n
Commandant of 115 Bn. BSF, is charged with:-\n<\/p>\n
 BSF Act An omission prejudicial to good
\norder Section 40 and discipline of the Forces.\n<\/p>\n
In that he, <\/p>\n
 at Bn Rear HQ Digberia Camp, Badu,
\nBarasat, on 30.9.91 at about 0645 hrs while working
\nas Officer Commanding Rear HQ 115 Bn BSF:\n<\/p>\n
improperly omitted to take due care and caution
\nwhile ordered troops to swim in nearby pond, in
\nuniform with B-scale, consequence whereof 3
\nconstables named No. 88123456 Const. Manipal
\nSingh, No. 89002924 Const. Satayender Kumar
\nChoubey and No. 90755665 Const. Dalbir Singh of
\nthe same battalion died due to drowning.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. The said charge-sheet was issued in terms of the Section 40 of the
\nBSF Act. On or about 23rd April 1992, a First Information Report was also
\nlodged by the Commandant purported to be for commission of an offence under
\nSection 304-A IPC for having caused the death of the afore-mentioned three
\nconstables. According to the petitioner, the second respondent herein as also the
\nappellate authority of the petitioner visited Calcutta and held the conference of
\nofficers wherein he categorically stated that the petitioner would be severally
\npunished. The General Security Force Court assembled on 15th July 1992, the
\norder wherefor is to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
 “Shri Thoru Ram IRLA No. 2776. Dy.\n<\/p>\n
Commandant of 115 Bn. BSF  <\/p>\n
Date 15th July 1992   <\/p>\n
 The officers as mentioned below will
\nassemble at BN. HQ. Tagorevilla, Alambazar,
\nCalcutta (West Bengal) on the 22nd day of July 1992
\nfor the purpose of trying by a General Security
\nForce Court the accused person (named in the
\nmargin).\n<\/p>\n
 The senior officer to sit as Presiding Officer.\n<\/p>\n
  MEMBERS<\/p>\n
  1. Shri K.B. Singh (IRLA-05616) Addl. DIG,
\nTrg. Dte, HQ. DG BSF New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Shri M.A. Khan (IRLA 20666) 21C,
\nAttached with Adm. Dte. HQ DG BSF New
\nDelhi.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Shri A.M. Khan, (IRLA 28778) Dy. Comdt.
\n01 BN BSF.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Shri P.N. Das (IRLA 2986) JAD (MT) SHO
\nBSF Krishnagar  <\/p>\n
 5. Shri R.N. Nair (IRLA 33202) Dy. Comdt.\n<\/p>\n
65 BN BSF.\n<\/p>\n
  WAITING MEMBERS  <\/p>\n
 1. Shri L.D. Lohani (IRLA 32674) JAD
\n(Comn) HQ SB Ftr BSF  <\/p>\n
 2. Shri B. Sengupta (IRLA 35422) Dy. Comdt,
\n12 BN BSF   <\/p>\n
  LAW OFFICER  <\/p>\n
 Shri Kuldeep Saini, JAD (Law), HQ DG
\nBSF New Delhi is appointed Law Officer   <\/p>\n
  PROSECUtor  <\/p>\n
 Shri A.K. Bandyopadhya (IRLA 10317)
\nAD (Prov) HQ SB Ftr BSF is appointed Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
 Services of Shri K.B. Singh (IRLA 05616)
\nAddl. DIG, Trg. Dte HQ DG BSF New Delhi and
\nShri M.A. Khan (IRLA 20660) 21 C attached with
\nAdm. Dte HQ DG BSF New Delhi, the members at
\nSrl. Nos. 1 & 2 have been placed at the disposal of
\nIG BSF South Bengal Ftr vide HQ DG BSF Signal
\nNo. R\/3517 of 27th June 1992.\n<\/p>\n
 It is not practicable to appoint officers of
\ndifferent battalions\/HQrs due to the exigencies of
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
 The accused person will be warned and all
\nwitnesses duly required to attend.\n<\/p>\n
 The proceedings (of which only two copies
\nare required) will be forwarded to the Chief Law
\nOfficer for post trial advice.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. It is not in dispute that out of five members, S\/Shri A.M. Khan,
\nP.N. Das and R.N. Nair were from Bengal whereas S\/Shri K.B. Singh and M.A.
\nKhan were brought from Head Quarters. However, the waiting members were
\nalso from Bengal. The said S\/Shri Singh and M.A. Khan had been placed at
\nthe disposal of the IG BSF South Bengal by respondent No. 2 in terms of Signal
\nNo. R\/3517 of 27th June 1992. The local police recorded the petitioner’s
\nstatement on 25th July 1992 which according to the petitioner caused grave
\nprejudice to him. The said investigation, however, was closed on the next date.
\nWithin a short span of time namely on 30th July 1992, the BSF Court concluded
\nits trial wherein the petitioner was sentenced to suffer forfeiture of seven years’
\nservice for purpose of pension and severe reprimand. He, thereafter filed a
\nstatutory petition on 27th November 1992. The petitioner, however, was
\npermitted to superannuate on 3rd December, 1992. The order of suspension was
\nrevoked three months after his retirement namely on 5th March 1993. The
\npetitioner’s application against the order of conviction was rejected on 6th July
\n1994.\n<\/p>\n
 11. The petitioner in this writ petition raised a number of contentions
\nincluding the constitution of the court. It was contended that the constitution of
\nthe court was in violation of Rule 61(1) of the Border Security Force Rules. It
\nwas further contended that the conviction of the petitioner is based on no evidence
\nand thus the impugned order must be set aside being irrational. It was further
\nsubmitted that the petitioner has been deprived of a fair trial in so far as the Law
\nOfficer not only addressed the court on questions of law but also on fact which is
\nimpermissible in terms of Rule 126 of the said Rules. The petitioner also
\ncontends that the material witnesses have not been examined.\n<\/p>\n
 12. Ms. Anjana Gosain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, would contend that main records as regards the
\nconstitution of the court is not available. As regards alleged violation of Rule 61
\nof the Rules, the learned counsel would submit that the same is directory in
\nnature. According to the learned counsel, several witnesses were examined in the
\nproceedings. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner could have
\nobjected to the constitution of the said court at the initial stage but he failed to do
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
 13. According to the learned counsel, in the said proceedings, nine
\nwitnesses examined themselves. The learned counsel would contend that those
\nwho had not been examined, their evidence was not material and thus, the
\npetitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced thereby.\n<\/p>\n
 14. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, there cannot be any
\ndoubt whatsoever that although the petitioner was placed under suspension by an
\norder dated 19th December 1991, as he had been put in service by an order dated
\n14th January 1992, he would be deemed to be on duty and thus from the said date,
\nand, thus, he would be entitled to the entire pay and allowances admissible to him
\nas if he was in active service. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us
\nto go into the question as to whatever services an officer is to put, to, would be
\ndeemed to be in active service or not.\n<\/p>\n
 15. So far as the contention relating to illegal constitution of the court
\nis concerned, it appears, that the DIG acts as a delegated authority. He, therefore,
\nnormally is entitled to detail officers who are within his jurisdiction to take part in
\nthe said Court Martial. Rule 61(1) of the BSF Rules provides that a court shall
\nconsist, as far as practicable, of officers of different battalions or units. In the
\ninstant case, admittedly, the said provision has not been complied with. It is true
\nthat the said Rule having regard to the language employed therein cannot be said
\nto be imperative in character but, as noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have
\nfailed to show as to why it was not practicable to comply with Rule 61 aforementioned.
\nFurthermore, in terms of Rule 62(e) of the said Rules, it is for the
\nconvening authority alone to appoint members of the court. A bare perusal of the
\ncomposition of court, as contained in the afore-mentioned proceedings dated 15th
\nJuly 1992 would show that two of the members had been placed at the services of
\nthe DIG, Bengal by the Inspector General of Border Security Force Headquarters.
\nUnder what circumstances, the said officers were placed for the purpose of
\nholding the trial is not known.\n<\/p>\n
 16. The contention of Ms. Gosain to the effect that the petitioner could
\nhave objected to the illegality in the matter of constitution of court at that time
\nonly does not seem to be correct in view of Section 84 of the BSF Act which
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “84. Challenge   .– (1) At all trials by a
\nGeneral Security Force Court or by a Petty Security
\nForce Court, as soon as the court is assembled, the
\nnames of the presiding officer and members shall be
\nread over to the accused, who shall thereupon be
\nasked whether he objects to being tried by any
\nofficer sitting on the court.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) If the accused objects to such officer, his
\nobjection and also the reply thereto of the officer
\nobjected to shall be heard and recorded, and the
\nremaining officers of the court shall in the absence
\nof the challenged officer decide on the objection.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) If the objection is allowed by one-half or
\nmore of the votes of the officers entitled to vote, the
\nobjection shall be allowed, and the member
\nobjected to shall retire, and his vacancy may be
\nfiled in the prescribed manner, by another officer
\nsubject to the same right of the accused to subject.\n<\/p>\n
  (4) When no challenge is made, or when a
\nchallenge has been made and disallowed, or the
\nplace of every officer successfully challenged has
\nbeen filled by another officer to whom no objection
\nis made or allowed, the court shall proceed with the
\ntrial.”\n<\/p>\n
 17. Section 84 of the Act, thereupon, operates in a limited filed. In terms
\nof the said provision, the petitioner could not have objected to the legality or
\notherwise of the constitution of the court.\n<\/p>\n
 18. The said provision is pari materia with the provisions of Section
\n111 of the Air Force Act. B.N. Kirpal, J. as his Lordship then was, in  Sahab
\nDayal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.,<\/a>  1987 Lab. IC 843 held:\n<\/p>\n
  “13. …By virtue of Section 111, it was
\nrespondent 3 who alone could be the Convening
\nOfficer. In fact in the present case the decision to
\norder District Court Martial was taken by
\nrespondent 3 on 30th Sept. 1973. Rule 43(3)
\nthereafter required that very convening officer is to
\nappoint and detail  officers to from the court. This
\nwas not done in the present case. The function
\nunder Rule 43(3) was discharged not by respondent 3
\nout by Wing Commander R.O. Lakin. This was not
\npermissible under the said rule. …”\n<\/p>\n
 19. It is, therefore, incorrect to contend that the petitioner could have
\nraised the objection at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
 20. As regards judicial review, the learned Judge held:\n<\/p>\n
  16. …In any case, what is being challenged by
\nthe petitioner here is jurisdictional fact, namely, the
\njurisdiction of the court martial as constituted to try
\nthe petitioner. If the court martial has not been
\nvalidly convened, then it had no jurisdiction to
\nproceed with trial and consequently its decision and
\nthe subsequent action taken thereon has all to be
\nregarded as being without jurisdiction. This
\njurisdictional infirmity can always be challenged by
\nfiling a writ petition under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution. The reading of the aforesaid
\nprovisions of the Act and the Rules leaves no
\nmanner of doubt that the District Court Martial was
\nnot properly constituted as the mandatory
\nprovisions of Rule 43(3) had not been complied with
\nan because of the invalidity in the order convening
\nthat court, the decision of the said court and the
\npunishment which has been ultimately imposed on
\nthe petitioner by respondent 3, and upheld by the
\nCentral Government, has therefore, to be quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
 21. In view of the afore-mentioned authoritative pronouncement, the
\nconstitution of the court must be held to be bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
 22. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a statutory authority
\nmust act within the four corners of the statute. In  vitarelli v. Seaton,  (1959) 359 US 535: 3 L Ed 2d 1012 Justice Frankfurter laid down the law in the following
\nwords:…..\n<\/p>\n
 ‘He who takes the procedural swords must perish with it’ as quoted in  Ramana
\nDayaram Shetty v. the International Indian Airport Authority of India and Ors., , as under:\n<\/p>\n
  An executive agency must be rigorously
\nheld to the standards by which it professes its action
\nto be judged…. Accordingly, if dismissal from
\nemployment is based on a defined procedure, even
\nthough generous beyond the requirements that bind
\nsuch agency, that procedure must be scrupulously
\nobserved…. This judicially evolved rule of
\nadministrative law is now firmly established and, if
\nI may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural
\nsword shall perish with the sword.”\n<\/p>\n
 23. It is not in dispute that Shri K.B. Singh and Shri M.A. Khan were
\nposted in the headquarters of the Director General of Delhi. The petitioner had
\nraised a contention that there had been no dearth of officers from South Bengal
\nFrontier. According to him, hundreds of such officers are available in the State
\nbut although the authority could find out two waiting members from West Bengal,
\nin the court, two members from outside had been thrust upon the convening
\nauthority. Such an unauthorized act on the part of the convening authority, in our
\nopinion, would amount to malice in law. The petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore,
\nhas categorically stated that the respondent No. 2 together with the appellate
\nauthority came to the site and threatened that the petitioner would be dealt with
\nseverally. The allegation of malice which led to the unfair trial of the petitioner
\nmust be considered from this angle. The submission of Ms. Gosain to the effect
\nthat as majority of members were from West Bengal, no prejudice was caused to
\nthe petitioner is stated to be rejected. It is now a well-settled principle of law that
\nfor the purpose of proving bias, the actual bias is not necessary to be established.
\nWhat is necessary to be established in a case of this nature is a real likelihood of
\nbias. When a person becomes a member of an adjudicating body, although his
\ndischarge may not be conclusive but it is well-known that he may be able to
\npersuade others to agree with him (See  A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,<\/a>  .\n<\/p>\n
 24. It is now a well-settled principle of law that justice is not only to be
\ndone but manifestly seen to be done.\n<\/p>\n
 25. In ‘Natural Justice’ by Paul Jackson, the law is stated to be in the
\nfollowing terms:\n<\/p>\n
  “It is the recognition of the importance of
\nthe requirement that justice is seen to be done that
\njustifies the giving of a remedy to a litigant even
\nwhen it may be claimed that a decision alleged to be
\nvitiated by a breach of natural justice would still
\nhave been reached had a fair hearing been given by
\nan impartial tribunal. The maxim is applicable
\nprecisely when the court is concerned not with a
\ncase of actual injustice but with the appearance of
\ninjustice, or possible injustice. In  Altco Ltd. v.
\nSutherland,  (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515 Donaldson J.
\nsaid that the court, in deciding whether to interfere
\nwhere an arbitrator had not given a party a full
\nhearing, was not concerned with whether a further
\nhearing would produce a different or the same
\nresult. It was important that the parties should not
\nonly be given justice, but, as reasonable men, know
\nthat they had had justice or “to use the time
\nhallowed phrase” that justice should not only be
\ndone but be seen to be done. In  R. v. Thames
\nMagistrates’ Court, ex p. Polemis, (1974) 1 W.L.R.
\n1371, the applicant obtained an order of certiorari to
\nquash his conviction by a stipendiary magistrate on
\nthe ground that he had not had sufficient time to
\nprepare his defense. The Divisional Court rejected
\nthe argument that, in its discretion, it ought to refuse
\nrelief because the applicant had no defense to the
\ncharge.\n<\/p>\n
  “It is again absolutely basic to
\nout system that justice must not only be
\ndone but must manifestly be seen to be
\ndone. If justice was so clearly not seen
\nto be done, as on the afternoon in
\nquestion here, it seems to me that it is
\nno answer to the applicant to say: ‘Well,
\neven if the case had been properly
\nconducted, the result would have been
\nthe same.’ That is mixing up doing
\njustice with seeing that justice is done”
\n(per Lord Widgery C.J. at p. 1375):\n<\/p>\n
 Stringer v. Minister of Housing, [1970]
\n1 W.L.R. 1281, 1297.\n<\/p>\n
 In  Maxwell v. Department of Trade [1974]
\n1 Q.B. 523, 540  Lawton L.J. expressed a similar
\nidea when he said, “Doing what is right may still
\nresult in unfairness if it is done in the wrong way.”
\n Barrs v. British Wool Marketing Board.   [1957]
\nS.C. 72, 82, per Lord President (Clyde). It is
\nbecause the assurance that justice has been seen to
\nbe done is, in itself, n important element in the
\npublic confidence in the settlement of disputes,
\nwhether in the courts or by other bodies, that, for
\nexample, the rules of natural justice may apply even
\nto what might be regarded as “open and shut cases.”
\nMegarry J. explained why, when warning of the
\ndanger of regarding any case as “open and shut”;\n<\/p>\n
  “‘When something is obvious’ (it
\nmay be said), ‘why force everybody to go
\nthrough the tiresome waste of time
\ninvolved in framing charges and giving an
\nopportunity to be heard? The result is
\nobvious from the start.’ Those who takes
\nthis view do not, I think, do themselves
\njustice. As everybody who has anything to
\ndo with the law well knows, the path of
\nthe is strewn with examples of open and
\nshut cases which, somehow, were not; of
\nunanswerable charges which, in the event,
\nwere completely answered; or inexplicable
\nconduct which was fully explained of
\nfixed and unalterable determinations that,
\nby discussion, suffered a change. Nor are
\nthose with any knowledge of human nature
\nwho pause to hink for a moment likely to
\nunderestimate the feelings of resentment of
\nthose who find that a decision against them
\nhas been made without their being afforded
\nany opportunity to influence the course of
\nevents” ( John v. Rees [1970] Ch. 345,\n<\/p>\n
402).”\n<\/p>\n
 26. We, therefore, agree with the learned counsel that by reason of
\nsuch constitution, the petitioner has been prejudiced. In any event, the said
\nofficers were appointed by the second respondent and not by the convening
\nauthority which is imperative as would be evident from Rule 62(e) which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 “Rule 62. Duties of convening officer when
\nconvening Courts: When an Officer
\nconvenes a Court he shall:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) issue a convening order in the appropriate form
\nset out in Appendix VII;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) direct upon what charges the accused is to be
\ntried and ensure that the accused has been remanded
\nfor trial by a Court upon these charges; by his
\nCommandant;\n<\/p>\n
 (c) if he is of the opinion that charges shall be put in
\nseparate charge sheets, so direct and shall also
\ndirect the order in which they are to be tried;\n<\/p>\n
 (d) direct, if there is more than one accused whether
\nthe accused are to be tried jointly or separately;\n<\/p>\n
 (e) appoint members of the Court and any waiting
\nmembers;\n<\/p>\n
 (f) in convening:\n<\/p>\n
 (i) a General Security Force Court; or  <\/p>\n
 (ii) a Petty Security Force Court which
\nhe considers should be attended by a
\nLaw Officer, take the necessary steps
\nto procure the appointment of a Law
\nOfficer by or on behalf of the Chief
\nLaw Officer;\n<\/p>\n
 (g) appoint an officer, subject to the Act or a
\ncounsel assisted by such an officer subject to the
\nAct, to prosecute:\n<\/p>\n
  Provided that the convening officer may
\nappoint more than one such officer to prosecute if
\nhe thinks fit (R. 123) <\/p>\n
 (h) appoint an interpreter wherever necessary;\n<\/p>\n
 (i) send to the senior member the charge sheet, the
\nconvening order and a copy of the record or abstract
\nof evidence from which any evidence which in his
\nopinion would be inadmissible at the trial has been
\nexpurgated;\n<\/p>\n
 (j) forward to each member of the court and to each
\nwaiting member, a copy of the charge-sheet;\n<\/p>\n
 (k) forward to the prosecutor copies of the charge
\nsheet and convening order and the original record or
\nabstract of evidence together with an unexpurgated
\ncopy thereof showing the passage (if any) which
\nhave been expurgated in the copy sent to the senior
\nmember;\n<\/p>\n
 (l) forward to the Law Officer (if any) copies of the
\ncharge sheet and convening order and an
\nunexpurgated copy of the record or abstract of
\nevidence showing the passage (if any) which have
\nbeen expurgated in the copy sent to the senior
\nmember;\n<\/p>\n
 (m) ensure that the Commandant has summoned all
\nthe prosecution witnesses and such defense
\nwitnesses as the accused may have requested to be
\nsummoned under Rule 64.”\n<\/p>\n
 27. It is true that nine witnesses had been examined in the court of
\nenquiry. According to the witnesses, the petitioner gave direction to the
\nConstables to jump into water with the ‘B’ scale equipment but it has also come
\nin evidence that the petitioner categorically stated that only those persons who
\nknow swimming should do so and others who do not know swimming would be
\ngiven the lessons. If further appears from the records that whereas others swam to
\nthe other side of the pond, only one person was drowning. With a view to save
\nhim, two other persons went near him and in the process, all the three persons
\ndied. It further appears from the records that the petitioner merely directed as
\nregards carrying out of practice by swimming by saying “shuru karo” meaning
\nthereby “start”. PW1 HC Jeevan Bhujal categorically stated that the petitioner
\ninstructed that only those persons who know swimming should come forward and
\nis to the same extent is the evidence of Sub Inspector Reddy who examined
\nhimself as PW4. Sub Inspector Reddy was in charge of the Constables in
\nquestion. Constable Satpal and Constable Vijay Kumar who examined
\nthemselves as PW5 and 6 respectively also confirmed to the afore-mentioned
\nstatement of the witnesses. It further appears from the evidence of PW1 that
\nunder the instructions of the petitioner even nylon rope and other swimming aid
\nwere brought to the place of exercise, which shows that all due care and caution
\nhad been taken. It is, therefore, not a case where the petitioners forced those to
\nundertake the said exercise who did not know swimming. It has also not been
\ndisputed that under the instructions of the petitioner, only a few men entered the
\nwater and others had awaited.\n<\/p>\n
 28. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it was not a
\ncase where it could be said that charges had been proved against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 29. Rule 126 of the BSF Rules reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “Rule 126. Power and duties of Law
\nOfficer: Where a Law Officer has been named to
\nact on the court, he shall-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) give his opinion on any question of law
\nrelating to the charge or trial whenever so required
\nby the Court, the prosecutor or the accused;\n<\/p>\n
 (b) inform the Court of any irregularities or
\nother infirmity in the proceedings;\n<\/p>\n
 (c) inform the Convening Officer and the Court
\nof any infirmity or defect in the charge or in the
\nconstitution of the Court;\n<\/p>\n
 (d) sum up the evidence and give his opinion on
\nany question of law before the Court proceeds to
\ndeliberate upon its findings.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) It shall be the duty of the law
\nOfficer to ensure that the accused does not suffer
\nany disadvantage in consequence of his position as
\nsuch or because of ignorance or incapacity to
\nexamine or cross-examine witnesses and for this
\npurpose the law Officer may, with the permission
\nof the Court, call witnesses and put questions to
\nthem which appear to him to be necessary or
\ndesirable.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) In the discharge of his duties, the
\nLaw Officer shall maintain an attitude of strict
\nimpartiality.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) Where any opinion has been given
\nby the Law Officer to the Court on any matter
\nbefore it, it may be entered in the proceedings, if the
\nLaw Officer or the Court desires it to be entered.\n<\/p>\n
 (5) The Law Officer shall represent the
\nChief Law Officer at a Security Force Court.”\n<\/p>\n
 30. The proceedings in the Security Force Act are akin to the jury trial
\nalthough actually it is not, as has been noticed by the Apex Court in  Union of India and Anr. v. Charanjit S. Gill and Ors.,<\/a>  .\n<\/p>\n
 31. The role of a Law Officer in terms of the afore-mentioned Rule,
\nneed not be highlighted. The Law Officer in proceedings under the Act, acts like
\na Judge-Advocate under the Army Act. In his briefing, the categorically stated
\nthat the statement of HC Jeevan Bhujal had been corroborated in material
\nparticulars of PW3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Whether a statement had been
\ncorroborated or not is a question of fact. The Law Officer, therefore, could not
\nexpress his opinion thereupon.\n<\/p>\n
 32. Yet again, while referring to PW 11, he stated that this statement
\nhad also been corroborated by the enrolled follower (barber) Ram Narayan.\n<\/p>\n
 33. Yet again, in answer to court question No. 20, the accused had also
\naccepted that those three Constables were putting on ‘B’ scale equipment.\n<\/p>\n
 34. Thus, the Law Officer not only expressed his opinion on question
\nof fact, he sought to influence the court by saying that the petitioner has accepted
\nthe act which would amount to a confession of guilt by him.\n<\/p>\n
 35. In view of the afore-mentioned infirmities, we are of the opinion
\nthat the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained which are set aside
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 36. This writ petit on is allowed with the direction that the arrears must
\nbe paid to the petitioner at an early date and not later than one month from the
\ncommunication of this order with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till actual
\npayment. The respondents shall also bear the cost of the petitioner which is
\nquantified at Rs. 5000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 172 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has, inter alia questioned a proceedings held in General Security Force Court. He […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-16T02:26:34+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T02:26:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4743,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-16T02:26:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 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":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-16T02:26:34+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T02:26:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002"},"wordCount":4743,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002","name":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-16T02:26:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-thoru-ram-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-anr-on-27-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Thoru Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 September, 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\/16237","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=16237"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16237\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}