{"id":169632,"date":"2002-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"modified":"2018-11-03T19:50:24","modified_gmt":"2018-11-03T14:20:24","slug":"pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated:19\/07\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No.21617 of 2002\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.32149 and 32150 of 2002\n\nPA. Niranzena (Minor)\nrep. By her father & Guardian\nD. Panneerselvam.                                       .. Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. By the Joint Director of\nGovernment Examinations,\nCollege Road, Chennai 6.\n\n2.The Secretary\n  Selection Committee (MBBS)\n  Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.                     .. Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nfor issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  M.  Venkatachalapathy,\n                Senior Counsel for Mr.  M.  Sriram\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.  S.P.  Prabhakaran,A.G.P.(E)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                By  consent  of both parties, the main writ petition itself is
\ntaken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  Aggrieved by the order of the Joint  Director,  Government
\nExaminations,  Chennai  6  –  first respondent herein informing the petitioner
\nthat there is no change in the marks even after  revaluation  in  the  Biology
\nsubject,  the  petitioner has filed the above writ petition through her father
\nand guardian to quash the same and for consequential direction  to  the  first
\nrespondent to issue revised enhanced mark list to her.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   According  to  the  petitioner,  she  appeared for the +2
\nexamination conducted by the first  respondent  during  March,  2002  and  her
\nRegistration  Number  is  880208  and  she  has secured 1141 marks out of 1200
\nmarks.  She belongs to Backward Community – Agamudiyar.  She also appeared for
\nthe Tamil Nadu Professional Course Entrance  Examination,  2002  conducted  by
\nAnna University for Medical as well as Engineering and her Registration Number
\nis 1532265 and has secured the following marks.\n<\/p>\n
“Biology Group total :  95.80
\nMaths Group total :  89.26”\n<\/p>\n
By  converting  the  marks  obtained  in  the  qualifying  examination and the
\nentrance examination, the petitioner secured 292.30 marks.  The cut off  marks
\nprescribed for the backward class for admission to MBBS course is 294.50.  The
\npetitioner lacks behind by 2.20 marks for considering her claims for admission
\nto Medical  College.    She obtained 194 marks out of 200 marks in the Biology
\npaper, which is less, according to her assumption.   Since  she  had  a  doubt
\nregarding the marks awarded to her in the subject Biology, she applied for the
\nxerox  copy  of the answer sheets in Botany and Zoology (Biology) and obtained
\nthe same and found that the valuation is not proper and she has to be  awarded
\n6 more  marks  in  Biology.  It is further stated that in Biology answer book,
\nfor Question Nos.17 and 20 no marks were awarded though the answers are  found
\nto be  correct  and  tick  marks  have  been  made  to that effect.  So far as
\nQuestion No.23 is concerned, only one mark has  been  given.    Similarly,  in
\nrespect  of Botany Section, for Question No.35 one mark has not been given for
\none step.  After knowing these defects from the xerox  copies  of  the  answer
\nsheets, the  petitioner  applied  for revaluation.  Even prior to applying for
\nrevaluation, the petitioner approached her Principal of her own School, who in
\nher letter dated 21.06.2002, addressed to the first respondent confirming  the
\nclaim of  the  petitioner  with  reference  to  the  said four questions.  The
\ninstructions given by the first respondent with reference  to  revaluation  is
\nhighly  arbitrary  and  unreasonable  and  no nexus to the object sought to be
\nachieved by revaluation.  Even if there is a difference, that is increase,  to
\nrestrict it upto 3 marks for any change is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable.
\nWhen  the  petitioner  has  given  the  correct answers for the questions, the
\nnon-awarding of marks is contrary to law,  illegal,  hence  the  present  writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   By order dated 26.06.2002, this Court issued rule nisi to
\nthe respondents and ordered notice in WPMPs.No.31249 and 31250 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  In WPMP.No.31249 of 2002, the petitioner  has  prayed  for
\nsuitable directions to the second respondent to admit her provisionally to the
\nfirst  year  MBBS  Course  in  one  of  the  free  seats for the academic year
\n2002-2003 according to her eligibility pending  disposal  of  the  above  writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   In  WPMP.No.31250  of  2002,  she  prayed  for directions
\ndirecting the first respondent to value the answer books of her in the subject
\nof Biology (Botany & Zoology) by a competent valuer pending  disposal  of  the
\nabove writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  When  these  petitions  came  up  for  hearing,  Mr.    M.\n<\/p>\n
Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  by
\ndrawing  my  attention  to  the  answers  given  in  the answer book regarding
\nQuestion No.35 in Botany and Question Nos.17, 20 and 23 in Zoology and the key
\nanswers for the  respective  questions  furnished  by  the  respondents  would
\ncontend  that  the  petitioner  is  entitled  to additional marks for the four
\nquestions referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  In the light  of  the  assertion  of  the  learned  senior
\ncounsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner, I have verified the above questions,
\nanswers furnished in the xerox copy of the answer book of the  petitioner  and
\nthe key  answers  furnished  by  the  respondents.   After hearing the learned
\nAdditional Government Pleader, I directed him to secure a  list  of  qualified
\nvaluers available from the City.  The learned Additional Government Pleader by
\ntaking  prompt  steps  furnished  a  list  of  valuers  available  in both the
\nsubjects.  Accordingly, on 11.07.2002, I have directed Ms.  M.  Vijayalakshmi,
\nPG – Assistant – Zoology, Government Model Higher Secondary School,  Saidapet,
\nChennai  600  015  to  revalue  the  answer books of Botany and Zoology of the
\npetitioner.  As directed, she appeared before the Court  at  10.30  a.m.    on
\nTuesday i.e.,  17.07  .2002.    She  informed  the Court that she is a Biology
\nteacher and not conversant with Botany  subject.    Accordingly,  the  learned
\nAdditional Government Pleader  has secured one Mr.  S.  Santhanakrishnan, PG –
\nAssistant – Botany, The Muthialpet  Higher  Secondary  School,  Thambu  Chetty
\nStreet, Chennai  600  001  for  valuation  of Botany answer book.  The learned
\nAdditional Government Pleader has also produced the original  answer  book  of
\nBotany and Zoology of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  As directed  by  this  Court, Ms.  M.  Vijayalakshmi, PG –
\nAssistant – Zoology, revalued the answers given by the petitioner relating  to
\nQuestion Nos.17,  20  and 23 of the Zoology subject.  After valuing the paper,
\nshe filed a report stating that one mark each may be given to  question  No.17
\nand 20 and  the  mark  awarded  for  question  No.23  is  correct.    Mr.   S.
\nSanthanakrishnan, PG – Assistant – Botany, after  valuing  Question  No.35  in
\nBotany  subject,  also  filed  a  report  stating that 9 marks awarded for the
\nquestion No.35 is quite reasonable and according to him no further addition is
\npossible.  The report of both the  teachers  shall  form  part  of  the  Court
\nrecords.   The  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  petitioner and the learned
\nAdditional Government Pleader perused  the  reports  and  argued  the  matter.
\nAfter  revaluation  by  the  two  teachers, it is clear that the petitioner is
\nentitled to another 2 marks in Zoology subject alone.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Mr.   M.    Venkatachalapathy,  learned  senior   counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner by drawing my attention to the second part of the
\nprayer  in  the  writ  petition requested this Court to issue direction to the
\nJoint Director of Government Examination to issue revised enhanced  mark  list
\nto the  petitioner.    In  the  normal  circumstance,  there  may  not  be any
\ndifficulty in issuing such direction.  However, learned Additional  Government
\nPleader   by  drawing  my  attention  to  G.O.Ms.No.8  School  Education  (V1)
\nDepartment dated 17.01.2001, would contend that in the light Condition  No.(v)
\ntherein  and  in  view of the fact that even in revaluation the petitioner has
\nsecured only 2 marks i.e., less than 3 marks, the same will not be considered.
\nIn view of the said contention, I hereby reproduce the English translation  of
\nClause (v) in G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 17.01.2001.\n<\/p>\n
“(v).   On  revaluation  if  the  increase  or decrease in mark is less than 3
\n(Three) the same will not be considered.  However if it  is  3  (  Three)  and
\nabove, the same will be effected in both ways (i.e.  Either upward revision or
\ndownward  revision)  and  a new mark certificate will be accordingly issued to
\ncandidates cancelling the earlier one.”\n<\/p>\n
It is clear from the above said Government Order that  though  the  candidates
\nare  eligible  to  get  the  xerox  copy  of  the answer book and also ask for
\nrevaluation in certain subjects, as per  Clause  (v)  referred  to  above,  on
\nrevaluation  if the increase or decrease in mark is less than 3, the same will
\nnot be considered.  It is further clear that if it is  three  and  above,  the
\nsame  will  be  effected  in  both  ways  and  new  mark  certificate  will be
\naccordingly issued to the candidate cancelling the earlier one.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   The  learned  Additional  Government  Pleader  has  also
\nbrought  to  my  notice the subsequent order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.77
\nSchool Education (V1) Department  dated  07.05.2001.    After  the  subsequent
\nGovernment  Order,  while  revaluing the answer book not only the increase but
\nalso decrease in mark will be considered.  However, as  stated  in  the  first
\nGovernment  Order,  the  increase or decrease in mark if it is less than three
\nthe same will not be considered and three and above the same will be  effected
\nin both ways i.e., either upward revision or down ward revision.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   The  learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
\nby pointing out Clause (v) in G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 17.01.2001 would contend  that
\nthere  is no basis to fix 3 and above marks for upward and down ward revision.
\nHe also contended that adding of marks on revaluation even decimal  constitute
\na  great  change  and  in  such a circumstance to prescribe a mark or limit is
\nopposed to public policy.  I am unable to accept the said contention.    First
\nof  all,  even  after  second  revaluation  at  the  instance of the Court the
\npetitioner had secured only 2 marks in the Biology paper and as  far  as  this
\nyear  is  concerned  even  after  adding  the  said  marks her claim cannot be
\nconsidered for Medicine, which is less than the prescribed cut off  marks  for
\nbackward class.    In  this  regard, learned Additional Government Pleader has
\nhighlighted that since thousands of candidates apply for revaluation, it would
\nbe possible for the revaluer to add fraction of marks, namely  1  or  2.    If
\nthose  marks  namely  less  than  3  are considered, it would upset the entire
\nprogramme for admission of professional colleges.  I am of the view  that  the
\nclaim  of  the  learned  Additional Government Pleader is quite reasonable and
\nacceptable.  Further, though the petitioner is aware of  condition  No.(v)  in
\nG.O.Ms.No.8  dated  17.01.1001,  admittedly,  she  has not challenged the said
\ncondition.  No doubt, in the affidavit the petitioner has stated that the said
\ncondition is unreasonable, opposed to public policy.  The  fact  remains,  the
\nsaid clause has not been questioned in an appropriate form.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   It  is also relevant to refer the recent decision of the
\nHon’ ble First Bench of this Court in the case of V.J.Sharmi vs.    Secretary,
\nSelection  Committee,  Chennai<\/a>  reported  in  AIR 2002 Madras 269, wherein the
\ncondition prescribed in latter Government Order, namely, G.O.Ms.  No.77  dated
\n07.05.2001 was  questioned.    The  argument  before  the  Bench  is  that the
\nGovernment is not justified in considering decrease in mark when the candidate
\nis applied for revaluation.  Rejecting the said contention, the Hon’ble  Chief
\nJustice speaking for the Bench has observed,
\n”       4.  …..    The  facility given by the State is by an executive order
\nand which is traceable to Art.162 of the Indian Constitution and students, are
\ngiven choice to apply for revaluation  as  a  whole  and  cannot  ask  only  a
\nparticular answer  to  be  revaluated.    There  is no provision for para wise
\nrevaluation.  In fact, as  per  the  Scheme,  the  appellant  has  sought  for
\nrevaluation, which is in format and that is for whole.  In this context, it is
\nrelevant to state that it is not within the realm of the Courts to examine the
\nmerits and  demerits  of  a  policy laid down by the Government.  It is apt to
\nstate what the Apex Court has stated in Maharashtra State Board  of  Secondary
\nand Higher Secondary Education vs.  Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, A.I.R.<\/a>  1984
\nSC  1543, which laid down three legal principles to test the reasonableness or
\notherwise of an education policy.  Those are:\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the provision of such regulations fall within the scope and  ambit
\nof the power conferred by the statute on the delegate;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Whether  the  rules \/ regulations framed by the delegate are to any extent
\ninconsistent with the provisions of the parent enactment; and lastly\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  Whether  they  infringe  any  of  the  fundamental  rights   or   other
\nrestrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution.
\nThe Governmental Order referred to above is well within the above stated legal
\nprinciples.  ”\n<\/p>\n
It  is  clear from the Division Bench decision that it is not within the realm
\nof the Courts to examine the merits and demerits of a policy laid down by  the
\nGovernment and in the absence of satisfying any one of the tests as enunciated
\nin A.I.R.   1984 S.C.  1543 (cited supra), the Government is well within their
\npowers to prescribe certain norms and conditions.    Accordingly,  though  the
\npetitioner has secured additional 2 marks in Zoology, revised mark list cannot
\nbe issued in the light of Clause (v) of G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 17.01.2001.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   In  the light of what is stated above, the writ petition
\nfails and the  same  is  dismissed.    No  costs.    This  Court  records  its
\nappreciation for the  timely assistance rendered by Ms.  M.  Vijayalakshmi, PG\n<\/p>\n
– Assistant – Zoology, Government Model  Higher  Secondary  School,  Saidapet,
\nChennai 600 015  and  Mr.   S.  Santhanakrishnan, PG – Assistant – Botany, The
\nMuthialpet Higher Secondary School, 83, Thambu Cheety Street, Chennai 600 001.\n<\/p>\n
                In view of the dismissal of the main writ petition,  connected
\nWPMPs., are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes
\nkh
\n19.07.2002<\/p>\n
P.  Sathasivam,J.,<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Joint Director of
\nGovernment Examinations,
\nState of Tamil Nadu
\nCollege Road, Chennai 6.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Secretary
\nSelection Committee (MBBS)
\nKilpauk, Chennai 600 010.\n<\/p>\n
Order in
\nW.P.No.22617 of 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:19\/07\/2002 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No.21617 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.Nos.32149 and 32150 of 2002 PA. Niranzena (Minor) rep. By her father & Guardian D. Panneerselvam. .. Petitioner […]<\/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-169632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 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\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-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=\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-03T14:20:24+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T14:20:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2175,\"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\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T14:20:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 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\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-03T14:20:24+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T14:20:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"},"wordCount":2175,"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\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002","name":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T14:20:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pa-niranzena-minor-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pa. Niranzena (Minor) vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/169632","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=169632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}