{"id":179930,"date":"2005-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005"},"modified":"2014-05-08T04:51:08","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T23:21:08","slug":"santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 08\/07\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE        \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA    \n\nW.P. No.22394 of 2004  \nand \nWrit Appeal Nos.1394 and 1395 of 2003 \nand \nW.A.M.P.Nos.1775 & 1776 of 2003   \nand \nW.P.M.P.No.27113 of 2004   \n\n\nSanthosh Hospitals \nPrivate Limited,\nRep. by its Administrative Officer,\nS.Chakravarthi,\n1, Seventh Avenue, \nBesant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.                  ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. State Human Rights \n    Commission, Tamil Nadu \n    rep. by its Registrar,\n    35 Thiru Vi.Ka. Salai,\n    Chennai - 600 014.\n\n2. The Chairman, Authorisation Committee, \n     and the Director of Medical Education,\n     Chennai - 600 010.\n\n3. Thiru.M.R.Balasubramani, \n    13\/20, Iyya Street,\n    Royapettah, Chennai - 600014.\n\n\n4. Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan,\n    Nephrologist,\n    2, Raja Garden First Street,\n    Kotivakkam, Chennai -600 041.\n\n\n5. The Secretary to the Government\n     of Tamil Nadu, Home Department,\n     Chennai - 600 009.\n\n\n6. The Secretary to the Government of\n    Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare\n    Department, Chennai - 600 009..                     ... Respondents\n\n\nW.A.No.1394 of 2003  \n\n\nSantosh Hospitals Private Limited,\nRep. by its Administrative Officer,\nS.Chakravarthi,\n1, Seventh Avenue, \nBesant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.                ...  Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Appropriate Authority\n     Human Organ Transplantation Act, 1994,\n     Office of the Director of Medical and\n     Rural Health Services,\n     Chennai - 600 006.\n\n2.  The Chairman, Authorisation Committee \n      and the Director of Medical Education,\n      Chennai - 600 010.                                ...Respondents\n\nW.A.No. 1395 of 2003 \n\nSantosh Hospitals Private Limited,\nRep. by its Administrative Officer,\nS.Chakravarthi,\n1, Seventh Avenue, \nBesant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.                        ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n1. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu   \n    rep. by its Registrar,\n    35 Thiru Vi.Ka. Salai,\n    Chennai - 600 014.\n\n2.  The Chairman, Authorisation Committee \n      and the Director of Medical Education,\n      Chennai - 600 010.\n\n3. Thiru.M.R.Balasubramani, \n    13\/20, Iyya Street,\n    Royapettah, Chennai - 600014.                       ... Respondents\n\n\n\n                Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia  praying  for  the  issue of a Writ of Certiorari for the reasons stated\ntherein.\n\n                Appeals  filed  under  Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against\nthe order passed in W.P.Nos.  40101 & 41806 of 2002 dated 13.03.2003. \n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE         <\/p>\n
        This writ petition has been filed praying for the a Writ of Certiorari
\nto quash the  impugned  order  of  the  first  respondent\/State  Human  Rights
\nCommission, Tamil Nadu dated 28.07.2004   <\/p>\n
        2.      Heard  Mr.Dinesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner;  Mr.N.R.Chandran,  learned  Advocate  General for the State; Mr.G.
\nMasilamani, learned senior counsel for the State Human Rights  Commission  and
\nMr.K.Govi Ganesan for the third respondent in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  petitioner  claims  to  be a reputed hospital in Chennai.
\nAfter the enactment of  the  Transplantation  of  Human  Organs  Act,  1994  (
\nhereinafter  referred to as ‘the Transplantation Act’), the petitioner applied
\nfor  registration  under  Section  10  of  the  Transplantation  Act  to   the
\nappropriate authority viz., the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services,
\nTamil Nadu  for  conducting  transplantation  of human organs.  By order dated
\n01.09.1996, the registration certificate  was  issued  to  the  petitioner  in
\nRegistration  No.43670\/E.7\/4\/95  valid  for  the  period  from  01.09.1996  to
\n31.08.2001 authorising the petitioner to allow kidney transplantation  in  its
\nhospital.  The registration was renewed from 01.09.2001 to 31.08.2006, and the
\nsame is valid and is in force.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      It  is  alleged  in paragraph 4 of the petition that one Dr.S.
\nVijayaraghavan, is a reputed nephrologist.   He  has  been  conducting  kidney
\ntransplantation  operations  in  various  hospitals  including  the petitioner
\nhospital.  He wanted to conduct kidney transplantation for one S.   Seralathan
\nby  removing  one  kidney from M.R.Balasubramani, the third respondent, in the
\npetitioner hospital.  Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan is not an employee of the petitioner
\nhospital,  but  he  is  merely  utilizing  the  facilities  available  in  the
\npetitioner hospital for conducting kidney transplantation surgery.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      In  paragraph 5 of the petition it is alleged that an order of
\napproval  being  Ref.No.75141\/H&D1\/2001  dated  04.12.2001  together  with  an
\naffidavit   of   M.R.Balasubramani  (Donor)  signed  by  M.R.Balasubramani  on
\n13.12.2001 and his wife Gomathi and attested by XXI  Metropolitan  Magistrate,
\nEgmore,  Chennai  –  8,  and  the affidavit of S.Seralathan ( Recipient) dated
\n13.12.2001 and attested by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,  Chennai  were
\nproduced by S.Seralathan  through Dr.  Vijayaraghavan, the nephrologist.  Only
\non receipt of the above mentioned documents the petitioner in the usual course
\nallowed the kidney transplantation for S.Seralathan in the petitioner hospital
\nwhich took place on 18 .12.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      In paragraph 6 of the  affidavit  it  is  stated  that  except
\npermitting surgery to be conducted in its theatre and the post operative stay,
\nthe  petitioner  did not have any role in the transplantation procedure, which
\nwas conducted by Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      In the affidavit dated 13.12.2001, which was attested  by  XXI
\nMetropolitan  Magistrate,  Egmore, Chennai, and signed by the Donor as well as
\nhis wife, it was stated:  –\n<\/p>\n
” I further declare and state that the donation of kidney by me is a voluntary
\none and there is no monetary consideration involved in it.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.      It   appears,   however,   that   subsequently    the    third
\nrespondent\/M.R.   Balasubramani gave a complaint to the first respondent\/State
\nHuman  Rights  Commission  on  26.08.2002  against   Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan   who
\nconducted  the  transplantation  to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,50,000\/- was
\nagreed to be paid to the donor for donating one kidney,  but  only  a  sum  of
\nRs.45,000\/-  was  paid  at  the time of the surgery, and the balance amount of
\nRs.1,05,000\/- has not yet been paid.  Hence M.R.  Balasubramani approached the
\nState Human Rights Commission for issuance of  a  direction  for  recovery  of
\nRs.1,05,000\/-  alleged  to  have been agreed by Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan to be paid
\nfor the kidney.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The aforesaid  complaint  of  Balasubramani  to  the  State  Human  Rights
\nCommission states:  –\n<\/p>\n
” From
\nBalasubramani
\n13\/20, Iyya Street,
\nRoyapettah,
\nChennai – 14.\n<\/p>\n
To
\nHonourable Mr.Member
\nState Human Rights Commission,
\nRoyapettah,
\nChennai – 14.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,<\/p>\n
        I have  two grown up girls.  I was not able to maintain my family with
\nmy monthly income of Rs.1,600\/-.  Therefore I started borrowing.    Ultimately
\nthe debts  became  a  great  burden.  I suffered because I could not repay the
\ndebts.  I became a mental patient.  Myself, my  wife  and  my  daughters  were
\nabout to  commit suicide.  At that stage I thought I can donate one kidney and
\nwith that money I can solve the problem.  With this object I met a doctor.  He
\nexamined me.  He told me that a person was fighting for his life and my kidney
\ncan be transplanted to him.   The  doctor  assured  that  the  person  who  is
\nfighting for  his  life  would  pay  me  Rs.1,50,000\/-.  Because of the family
\ncircumstances and the debt burden I gave my consent.  On the  date  of  kidney
\ntransplantation I  was  paid  Rs.45,000\/-.   He told that the balance would be
\npaid later.  Now the doctor is refusing to make payment.\n<\/p>\n
        Even though four months time have passed after the  transplantation  I
\nhave not  received  the  money.   When I approached the doctor he told me that
\nonly a sum of Rs.45,000\/- was agreed and threatened that if I demand  anything
\nmore he would do some thing to me and my family.  Therefore my heart broke.  I
\napproached the  recipient of the kidney.  He told me that he has nothing to do
\nwith me and that I should approach only the  doctor.    I,  therefore,  humbly
\nrequest you to save me and my family.\n<\/p>\n
Note:   I  came to know subsequently that he had conducted the transplantation
\nwithout the permission of the Government<\/p>\n
Sir,
\n        I forwarded this petition to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.  Letter
\nwent to the Commissioner of Police from  the  C.M.Special  Cell.    After  two
\nmonths  Thiruvanmiyur  police  came to my house saying that they have received
\nthe letter.  They enquired my wife about this.  They told my wife to inform me
\nwhen I returned and asked me to go to the police station next day.  I met  the
\nWriter.   He told me that when he went to Santosh Hospital and enquired he was
\ninformed that there was no such doctor.  He wanted  to  know  the  residential
\naddress of the doctor.  The Writer told me that the doctor will come to you to
\ndiscuss and you bring here when he comes.\n<\/p>\n
Sir, I request you to save me and my family.  I have enclosed a copy.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n        Thanking you,\nThe address of the recipient    The Doctor                      Yours\nfaithfully,\nSeralathan                              Vijayaraghavan\n5\/65, Second Street,                    Besant Nagar\nWorkers Street,\n(Balasubramani)\" \nNeelankarai\n<\/pre>\n
10.     On the basis of the complaint of the third respondent, the State Human
\nRights  Commission  issued  summons  to  the petitioner, the second respondent
\n(Chairman, Authorisation Committee), and Dr.S.    Vijayaraghavan,  the  fourth
\nrespondent to  appear  before  it  on  18.10.2002.    On that date, the second
\nrespondent filed a counter affidavit before the State Human Rights  Commission
\nstating  that  the  approval letter submitted by M\/s.Santosh Hospitals Private
\nLimited under Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Act in  respect  of  patient
\nS.Seralathan is  a  bogus  one.    It  was  further  contended  that  no  such
\napplication   in   respect   of   patient   S.Seralathan,   the   donee,   and
\nM.R.Balasubramani, the donor, was either submitted by the hospital or received
\nin the  Directorate  of  Medical  Education,  Chennai.    In the Authorisation
\nCommittee meeting held on 04.12.2001 no such order was issued in favour of the
\nabove individuals.   The  Chairman  of  the  Authorisation  Committee  further
\ncontended  in  his  counter affidavit before the State Human Rights Commission
\nthat the act of Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan who performed  the  renal  transplantation
\nwithout  the  approval  of the Authorisation Committee is highly irregular and
\npunishable under the Transplantation  Act,  and  the  petitioner  should  have
\nobtained  prior  permission  or  approval  of the Authorisation Committee, and
\nwithout approval of the Authorisation  Committee  permitting  to  perform  the
\noperation  is highly irregular and the hospital’s registration is liable to be
\nsuspended or cancelled.   The  Authorisation  Committee  also  stated  in  its
\ncounter  affidavit  that  action was being taken by addressing a letter to the
\nDirector of  Medical  and  Rural  Health  Services  and  Member  Authorisation
\nCommittee,  Chennai  for  enquiry  into  the  matter  and  for considering the
\ncancellation of the registration of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     A  counter  affidavit  was  filed by Santosh Hospitals Private
\nLimited\/petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission in  which  it  was
\nstated that one Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan, a Nephrologist wanted to conduct a kidney
\ntransplantation   for   one   S.Seralathan   by   removing   one  kidney  from
\nM.R.Balasubramani, the  complainant.    An  order  of  approval  in  Reference
\nNo.75141\/H&D1\/2001  along with documents was produced by the recipient through
\nDr.S.Vijayaraghavan.  After receipt of the documents Santhosh Hospital in  the
\nusual  course allowed kidney transplantation for S.Seralathan which took place
\non 18.12.2001.    It  was  alleged  that  except  for  giving  permission   to
\nDr.S.Vijayarag  havan  to  conduct transplantation no other role was played by
\nthe hospital in the  transplantation  procedure.    It  is  alleged  that  the
\nhospital  had nothing to do with the submission of the application and sending
\nof the authorization order.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan, who was the third respondent  before  the
\nState  Human  Rights  Commission,  also  filed  a counter affidavit before the
\ncommission.  In that he has stated that  the  recipient  S.Seralathan  himself
\nproduced  the  certificate  issued  by  the  Authorisation  Committee,  and on
\nbelieving the same as true and genuine,  the  operation  was  duly  performed.
\nHence, he has alleged that he has not committed any irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     It appears that while the enquiry was pending before the State
\nHuman   Rights   Commission,   the   complainant  M.R.Balasubramani  filed  an
\napplication dated 02.07.2003 stating that he was withdrawing the complaint  on
\nhis  own  accord  and requested the commission to dismiss the complaint as not
\npressed.  This application was rejected by the Commission since it was of  the
\nview  that  the  dispute  was  not  between  two individuals, but it was as to
\nwhether the parties followed the provisions of  the  Transplantation  Act,  as
\nviolation of  the  provision was a serious offence against the society.  Hence
\nthe Commission felt that a detailed enquiry was desirable.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Consequently Dr.Ravindran, Director of Medical Education,  and
\nDr.Anil  Kumar,  Deputy  Director  of  Medical  Education  appeared before the
\nCommission and submitted that the permission order alleged to have been  given
\nby  the  Authorisation Committee under Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Act
\nto perform the operation was a bogus one, and so the question of  scrutinizing
\nthe  documents  said  to have been produced by the donor and the donee did not
\narise.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     Considering all the facts of the case, and also the fact  that
\nthe  complainant  had  to  donate one of his kidneys due to his poverty and to
\nescape from the clutches of his  creditors,  the  Commission  on  humanitarian
\ngrounds  recommended  the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a sum of Rs.30,000\/-
\nto the complainant which could be recovered from the  person  responsible  for
\nthis heinous  crime  after  detailed  probe  by  the  Crime  Branch,  CID.  In
\nconclusion, the State Human Rights Commission by the impugned order  made  the
\nfollowing recommendations:–\n<\/p>\n
1)The Secretary to Government of Tamil  Nadu,  Home  Department,  Secretariat,
\nChennai  shall  order  a  detailed investigation by Crime Branch, CID and file
\nappropriate criminal case against the culprits who played with the life of the
\npoor people taking advantage of their pathetic condition.\n<\/p>\n
2)The Secretary to  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,  Health  and  Family  Welfare
\nDepartment,  Secretariat,  Chennai  on humanitarian consideration, shall pay a
\nsum  of  Rs.30,000\/-  (Rupees  thirty  thousand  only)  to   the   complainant
\nThiru.M.R.Balasubramani, 13\/20, Ayyah Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 as
\ncompensation  and  shall recover the amount so paid from the guilty persons by
\ninvoking appropriate provisions of law”.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the  petitioner,
\nsubmitted that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred
\nas  the  ‘Human  Rights  Act’)  deals  only with violation of human rights ‘by
\npublic servants’ and not by others.  He has submitted that the  petitioner  is
\nnot  a  public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act had no application, and
\nconsequently the impugned order was without jurisdiction and a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
17.     In this  connection,  the  learned  senior  counsel  has  invited  our
\nattention to Section 12(a) of the said Act, which states:  –
\n”  The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
(a)inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to  it  by  a  victim  or  any
\nperson on his behalf, into complaint of –\n<\/p>\n
(i)violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant;”\n<\/p>\n
        18.     Mr.Dinesh  Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, submitted that the
\nwords “by a public servant” would govern both  sub-clause  (i)  and  subclause\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of Section 12(a) of the Human Rights Act.\n<\/p>\n
        19.     On the other hand, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for
\nthe  Commission,  submitted  that the words “by a public servant” governs only
\nsub clause (ii) and not sub-clause (i) of Section 12(a) of  the  Human  Rights
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
        20.     In our opinion, the submission of Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi appears to
\nbe  correct,  because if we read Section 12 along with Section 18 of the Human
\nRights Act, whatever ambiguity there may have been in Section 12 of the  Human
\nRights Act  gets  clarified  by  Section  18 of the Human Rights Act.  Section
\n18(1) states:  –\n<\/p>\n
” The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an
\ninquiry held under this Act, namely:  –\n<\/p>\n
(1)where the inquiry discloses, the commission of violation of human rights or
\nnegligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant,
\nit may recommend to the concerned Government or authority  the  initiation  of
\nproceedings  for  prosecution  or such other action as the Commission may deem
\nfit against the concerned person or persons”\n<\/p>\n
        21.     A perusal of Section 18 of the Human Rights Act shows that the
\nCommission can take action in the  matter  where  the  inquiry  discloses  the
\ncommission  of  violation  of  human rights or negligence in the prevention of
\nviolation of human rights by a public servant.  Thus, the ambiguity,  if  any,
\nin  Section  12(a) of the Human Rights Act gets removed by perusing Section 18
\nof the Human Rights Act.\n<\/p>\n
        22.     This  position becomes further clear on a perusal of Form-A of
\nthe State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1  997.
\nClause 9 of which states:  –\n<\/p>\n
” Name, designation and address of public servant, who violated  Human  Rights
\nor  by  whose  negligence the violation was not prevented ( Enter here all the
\nnames and addresses if more than one is complained against)”\n<\/p>\n
        23.     Similarly in Form-I of the National Human Rights Commission  (
\nProcedure) Regulations, 1997, it is stated in clause-8:  –
\n”  Name,  designation  and  address  of  the  public  servant  by whom alleged
\nviolation of human  right  was  committed\/abetted  or  who  was  negligent  in
\nprevention of such violation\n<\/p>\n
(i)\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\n(NOTE:   If  the complaint relates to Armed Forces, here specifically indicate
\nthe Ministry\/Department of the  Central  Government  under  which  such  Armed
\nForces come) <\/p>\n
        24.     Thus,  a  perusal  of  the provisions of the Act and the forms
\nannexed to the Regulations clearly indicate that the Human  Rights  Act  deals
\nwith violation  of  Human  Rights  by  a  public  servant and not others.  The
\npetitioner is surely not a public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act will
\nnot apply to him at all.\n<\/p>\n
        25.     It  may  be mentioned that the expression “public servant” has
\nbeen defined in Section 2(m) of the Human Rights Act as follows:  –
\n”  Public  Servant  shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 21 of the
\nIndian Penal Code”\n<\/p>\n
        26.     Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code states:  –\n<\/p>\n
” The words “public  servant”  denote  a  person  falling  under  any  of  the
\ndescriptions hereinafter the following, namely:
\nFirst—(Omitted by Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950)
\nSecond—Every  Commissioned  Officer  in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of
\nIndia
\nThird-Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge,  whether
\nby himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions.
\nFourth  – Every Officer of a Court of Justice including a liquidator, receiver
\nor commissioner whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on
\nany matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any  document  or
\nto take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process,
\nor  to administer any oath or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court;
\nand every person specially authorized by a Court of  Justice  to  perform  any
\nsuch duties;\n<\/p>\n
Fifth  –  Every juryman, assessor, or member of panchayat assisting a Court of
\nJustice or public servant;\n<\/p>\n
Sixth – Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has  been
\nreferred  for  decision  or  report  by  any Court of Justice, or by any other
\ncompetent public authority;\n<\/p>\n
Seventh – Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered
\nto place or keep any person in confinement;\n<\/p>\n
Eighth – Every Officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to
\nprevent offences, to give information  of  offences,  to  bring  offenders  to
\njustice, orto protect the public health, safety or convenience;
\nNinth   –  Every  officer  whose  duty  it  is,  as  such  officer,  to  take,
\nreceive,keepor expend any property on behalf of the Government or to make  any
\nsurvey,  assessment  or contract on behalf of the Government or to execute any
\nrevenue process, or to investigate, or to report on any matter  affecting  the
\npecuniary  interests  of  the  Government or to make, authenticate or keep any
\ndocument relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government or  to  prevent
\nthe infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the
\nGovernment
\nTenth  –  Every  Officer  whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive,
\nkeep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to  levy  any
\nrate of tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district or
\nto  make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights
\nof the people of any village, town or district;\n<\/p>\n
Eleventh – Every person who  holds  any  office  in  virtue  of  which  he  is
\nempowered  to  prepare,  publish,  maintain  or revise as electoral roll or to
\nconduct an election or part of an election.;\n<\/p>\n
Twelfth – Every person –\n<\/p>\n
(a)in the service  or  pay  of  the  Government  or  remunerated  by  fees  or
\ncommission for the performance of any public duty by the Government ;\n<\/p>\n
(b)in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or
\nunder a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined in
\nSection 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956)”\n<\/p>\n
A  careful  perusal of the definition of ‘public servant’ in Section 21 of the
\nIndian  Penal  Code  shows  that  neither  the  petitioner  hospital  nor  the
\nAuthorization  Committee constituted under Section 9(4) of the Transplantation
\nAct can be said to be a ‘public servant’.\n<\/p>\n
        27.     It may be  mentioned  that  under  Section  9(4)  (b)  of  the
\nTransplantation Act, the State Government has to constitute by notification an
\nAuthorization  Committee  consisting of such members as nominated by the State
\nGovernment.  Neither the Authorization Committee nor its members can  be  said
\nto  be  ‘public  servants’  as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code,
\nbecause they do not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section  21
\nof the Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
        28.     In  these  circumstances,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that the
\nProtection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has no application to the  facts  of  the
\npresent case at all.  Since the Human Rights Act was not applicable at all, we
\nfail  to  see  how the provisions of the said Act could have been invoked, and
\nhow the State Human Rights Commission  could  have  taken  cognizance  of  the
\nmatter.   Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order dated 28.7.2004 made in
\nS.H.R.C Case No.5026\/2002\/SS is a nullity being without jurisdiction,  and  it
\nis hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        29.     However we  cannot leave the matter at that.  Though we are of
\nthe view that the State Human Rights Commission had  no  jurisdiction  in  the
\nmatter,  we  certainly  share the concern and agree with the view expressed by
\nthe Commission that the matter requires to be  thoroughly  probed,  and  those
\nresponsible   should   be   brought  to  book  under  the  provisions  of  the
\nTransplantation Act, and\/or Penal code or other penal statutes.\n<\/p>\n
        30.     There is no dispute that Section 9(3) of  the  Transplantation
\nAct  was violated in this case since the kidney of a person, who is not a near
\nrelative,  was  removed  and  transplanted  without  prior  approval  of   the
\nAuthorization Committee.    Even  the alleged certificate of the Authorization
\nCommittee was found to be a bogus one.    Hence  serious  offences  have  been
\ncommitted  which calls for a thorough probe into the matter and action need to
\nbe taken including criminal prosecution of those found to be involved.\n<\/p>\n
        31.     The very purpose of the Transplantation  Act  was  to  prevent
\nexploitation of poor persons by greedy doctors and other greedy persons.\n<\/p>\n
        32.     A large number of incidents have  come  to  light  where  poor
\npersons who were in dire need of money were exploited and one of their kidneys
\nremoved.   For  instance,  sometime back in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, it was found
\nthat poor persons often coming  from  hilly  areas  or  villages,  were  given
\nanesthesia,  and  later  on  on regaining consciousness they found that one of
\ntheir kidneys was removed.  The same practice has been going on in many places
\nwhere poor persons have been deceived or  exploited  due  to  poverty.    This
\nphenomenon  has  also  been  highlighted  in  the novel “Coma” by the American
\nwriter Robin Cook.\n<\/p>\n
        33.     A perusal of the complaint of Balasubramani (quoted earlier in
\nthis  judgment)  prima facie shows that the Doctor took undue advantage of the
\npoverty of Balasubramani, who was in great financial distress, and  hence  the
\nlatter agreed to donate one of his kidneys for Rs.1,50 ,000\/- but for which he
\nwas paid  only  Rs.45,000\/-.    We  are  not  expressing any opinion about the
\nveracity of the complaint of Balasubramani as that has to  be  enquired  into,
\nbut  if  it  is  correct,  it is indeed a very serious matter, and all persons
\nresponsible  deserve  severe  punishment   under   the   provisions   of   the
\nTransplantation Act or Penal Code or other criminal statute.\n<\/p>\n
        34.     Thus, while we set aside the impugned order of the State Human
\nRights commission as one being without jurisdiction, we direct the authorities
\nconcerned  to make a thorough probe into the matter as also recommended by the
\nState Human Rights Commission in its impugned order,  and  appropriate  action
\nshould be taken against those who have committed this offence, if found true.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed off.\n<\/p>\n
        36.     As regards Writ Appeal No.  1394 of 2003, this relates to Writ
\nPetition No.41806 of 2002 in which the  respondents  were  1).The  Appropriate
\nAuthority,   Human  Organ  Transplantation  Act,  1994  and  2).The  Chairman,
\nAuthorisation Committee and the Director of Medical Education.  The prayer  in
\nW.P.No.41806  of  2002  was  to  quash the order of the first respondent dated
\n13.11.2002 and of the second respondent dated 29.10 .2002, and for restraining
\nthe respondents from proceeding in any manner against the  petitioner  Santosh
\nHospitals  Private  Limited  or  its  Chairman,  Directors  and  the employees
\npursuant to the aforesaid orders.  It may be noted that the  first  respondent
\nby  order dated 13.11.2002 only directed Dr.Vijayaraghavan and the proprietors
\nof M\/s.Santosh Hospitals to appear before the State Appropriate Authority with
\nall relevant documents on 25.11.2002.  Writ Petition No.  41806  of  2002  was
\ndismissed  by  the  learned  single Judge by judgment dated 13.03.2003 stating
\nthat the petitioner should appear  before  the  Appropriate  Authority,  Human
\nOrgan Transplantation Act, 1994.  This order of the learned single Judge dated
\n13.03.2003 was challenged in Writ Appeal No.  1394 of 2003 in which an interim
\norder was obtained.\n<\/p>\n
        37.     In  our  opinion, there is no merit in this writ appeal as the
\norder dated 13.11.2002 is only a show cause notice, and this  Court  does  not
\nordinarily interfere  with show cause notices vide Special Director Vs.  Mohd.
\nGhulam Ghouse, AIR 2004  SC  1467,  Ulagappa  Vs.    Divisional  Commissioner,
\nMysore,  (2001)  10 SCC 639, Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs.
\nRamesh K.Singh & Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 331 and M\/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd
\nv.  Indian Bank<\/a> rep.  by its Deputy General Manager and another,  W.P.No.13056
\nof 2005 etc.    batch  delivered on 07.07.2005.  Hence, W.A.No.1394 of 2003 is
\ndismissed since in our opinion the writ petition itself was pre-mature.\n<\/p>\n
        38.     As regards Writ Appeal No.  1395 of  2003,  this  pertains  to
\nW.P.   No.40101 of 2002 filed by M\/s.Santosh Hospitals Private Limited praying
\nfor a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the State Human  Rights  Commission  and
\nits  officials  from  proceeding  further  in connection with the complaint of
\nBalasubramani before the State Human Rights Commission.   The  learned  single
\nJudge  in his judgment in Writ Petition No.40101 of 2002 has observed that the
\npetitioner can put forward his case before the State Human  Rights  Commission
\nas  well  as before the appropriate authorities under the Transplantation Act.
\nSince thereafter  the  State  Human  Rights  Commission  by  its  order  dated
\n28.07.2004 has  disposed  off the complaint finally, Writ Appeal Nos.  1395 of
\n2003 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.\n<\/p>\n
        39.     Moreover, we have held that the  Human  Rights  Act  does  not
\napply  at all in this case, since there is no allegation of violation of Human
\nRights by a public servant.  Accordingly, W.A.Nos.  1394 and 1395 of 2003  are
\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, W.P.M.P and W.A.M.Ps are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
pv\/<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1.  State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu
\nrep.  by its Registrar,
\n35 Thiru Vi.Ka.  Salai,
\nChennai – 600 014.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chairman, Authorisation Committee,
\nand the Director of Medical Education,
\nChennai – 600 010.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Secretary to the Government
\nof Tamil Nadu, Home Department,
\nChennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Secretary to the Government of
\nTamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare
\nDepartment, Chennai – 600 009..\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 08\/07\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.P. No.22394 of 2004 and Writ Appeal Nos.1394 and 1395 of 2003 and W.A.M.P.Nos.1775 & 1776 of 2003 and […]<\/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-179930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanthosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - 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\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4222,\"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\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - 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\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005"},"wordCount":4222,"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\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005","name":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T23:21:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/santhosh-hospitals-vs-state-human-rights-on-8-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Santhosh Hospitals vs State Human Rights on 8 July, 2005"}]},{"@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\/179930","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=179930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}