{"id":183059,"date":"2003-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003"},"modified":"2016-05-29T20:55:34","modified_gmt":"2016-05-29T15:25:34","slug":"union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: J Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5007 of 2003\nAppeal (civil)  5008 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nUnion of India and Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nRajiv Kumar\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nBani Singh\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/07\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\t\t\t\t\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
WITH<\/p>\n
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4491 of 2003)<\/p>\n
(Arising out of SLP(C) 12703\/2003 (CC.5872\/2003)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J<\/p>\n
Delay condoned in SLP(C)………\/2003 (CC 5872\/2003).<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe basic issue in these two appeals relates to the <\/p>\n
scope and ambit of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central <\/p>\n
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, <\/p>\n
1965 (in short the ‘Rules’) vis-\u00e0-vis other provisions of <\/p>\n
the said Rule.\n<\/p>\n
\tDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court by the impugned <\/p>\n
judgment in each case held that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 does <\/p>\n
not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that <\/p>\n
the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding <\/p>\n
forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn. It <\/p>\n
was further held that on a plain reading of the said <\/p>\n
provision it is clear that the same comes to an end by <\/p>\n
operation of law after release of the employee from <\/p>\n
detention.\n<\/p>\n
\tFactual scenario is almost undisputed and needs to be <\/p>\n
noted in brief.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent-employee in each case was arrested and <\/p>\n
detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. With <\/p>\n
reference to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10, the order was passed <\/p>\n
in each case indicating that in view of the detention in  <\/p>\n
custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the concerned <\/p>\n
employee is deemed to have been suspended with effect from <\/p>\n
the date of suspension and shall remain suspended until <\/p>\n
further orders.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe background facts of the appeal relating to <\/p>\n
respondent-Rajiv Kumar is referred for the purpose of <\/p>\n
adjudicating the issues involved as the factual position in <\/p>\n
the appeal relating to Bani Singh would not affect ultimate <\/p>\n
conclusions. Rajiv Kumar was arrested on 26.3.1998 for <\/p>\n
allegedly accepting bribe and was released on bail on <\/p>\n
2.4.1998. The order purportedly under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule <\/p>\n
10 to formally place on record was passed on 15.5.1998. On <\/p>\n
2.7.2000 the order dated 15.5.1998 was assailed before the <\/p>\n
Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the ‘CAT’) at its <\/p>\n
Delhi Bench on the ground that there was no reason for his <\/p>\n
continued suspension. The prosecuting agency filed challan <\/p>\n
on 2.9.2000. On 11.10.2000, Rajiv Kumar filed an application <\/p>\n
for interim relief. On 9.11.2000 an order was passed by the <\/p>\n
authorities continuing suspension. By judgment dated <\/p>\n
14.3.2001 CAT directed the authorities to dispose of the <\/p>\n
matter by a reasoned and speaking order. An application for <\/p>\n
review was filed on 26.4.2001. It was rejected by an order <\/p>\n
dated 15.5.2001. In terms of the CAT’s directions, an order <\/p>\n
was passed on 21.5.2001. The same is stated to be the <\/p>\n
subject matter of challenge before the Mumbai Bench of CAT. <\/p>\n
On 3.8.2001, Civil Writ Petition No.4746\/2001 was filed <\/p>\n
before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders <\/p>\n
dated 14.3.2001 and 15.5.2001. At this juncture, it needs to <\/p>\n
be noted that there was no challenge to the order dated <\/p>\n
9.11.2000.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court came to <\/p>\n
hold, as noted above, that CAT was not correct in remitting <\/p>\n
the matter back to the appointing authority for <\/p>\n
consideration of the matter afresh. It was, inter alia, <\/p>\n
observed that if a question of law had been raised before <\/p>\n
it, CAT was required to apply its mind and pass appropriate <\/p>\n
orders. The impugned order of suspension was quashed. It was <\/p>\n
held that the order dated 15.5.1998 cannot be treated  to be <\/p>\n
one passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10. It was held that <\/p>\n
an order of suspension after release of the petitioner on <\/p>\n
bail could not have been passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule <\/p>\n
10 and such order could have been passed only in terms of <\/p>\n
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10. View expressed  by a Full Bench of <\/p>\n
the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena and Ors. <\/p>\n
v. Director of Education (Basic) U.P.,Lucknow and Anr. (1997 <\/p>\n
Allahabad Law Journal 963) was followed. It was further held <\/p>\n
that a combined reading of Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) <\/p>\n
and 10(5)(a) makes the position clear that the order of <\/p>\n
suspension was effective for the period of detention and not <\/p>\n
beyond it where by legal fiction a person is deemed to be <\/p>\n
under suspension for being in custody for a period exceeding <\/p>\n
48 hours.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the sake of brevity, different Sub-rules have been <\/p>\n
referred as Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5)(a), <\/p>\n
10(5)(b) and 10(5)(c).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Bani Singh’s case, the logic was applied, since the <\/p>\n
legal position was held to be similar.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeals, learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
Union of India submitted that if the interpretation put by <\/p>\n
the High Court is accepted the same would mean addition of <\/p>\n
words to Rule 10(2). The language used in the said provision <\/p>\n
is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, there is no scope <\/p>\n
for making any alteration in the statutory texture. It was <\/p>\n
further submitted that by accepting the interpretation, Sub-<\/p>\n
Rule 5(a) of Rule 10 would also be rendered purposeless. <\/p>\n
\tPer contra, respondents-employees who appeared in <\/p>\n
person submitted that the interpretation  brings out the <\/p>\n
true essence of a deeming provision, which cannot be <\/p>\n
extended beyond the purpose for which it was enacted. On a <\/p>\n
combined reading of Rules 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a) <\/p>\n
it is claimed for the respondents that the order of <\/p>\n
suspension in a case covered under Rule 10(2)(a) has limited <\/p>\n
operation for the period of detention and not beyond it. <\/p>\n
Further it is submitted that an employee cannot be placed <\/p>\n
under suspension for an indefinite period of time. Though <\/p>\n
suspension is not penal in character yet it has serious <\/p>\n
civil consequences. In the fact till date there has been <\/p>\n
practically no progress in criminal proceedings and the <\/p>\n
departmental actions initiated.\n<\/p>\n
With reference to the Central Civil Services <\/p>\n
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (in short <\/p>\n
the ‘Old Rules’), it is pointed out that there is <\/p>\n
conceptual difference in the relevant provisions and the <\/p>\n
interpretation put by the High Court is in order. <\/p>\n
Additionally, it is submitted that fresh order of <\/p>\n
suspension has been passed and the appeals have become <\/p>\n
infructuous because of subsequent events. <\/p>\n
Rule 10 is the pivotal provision around which the <\/p>\n
controversy revolves, and it reads as follows:<\/p>\n
Rule 10.  Suspension<\/p>\n
(1)  The appointing authority or any authority <\/p>\n
to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary <\/p>\n
authority or any other authority empowered in <\/p>\n
that behalf by the President, by general or <\/p>\n
special order, may place a Government servant <\/p>\n
under suspension \u2013<\/p>\n
(a)\twhere a disciplinary proceeding against <\/p>\n
him is contemplated or is pending; or<\/p>\n
(aa)\twhere, in the opinion of the authority <\/p>\n
aforesaid, he has engaged himself in <\/p>\n
activities prejudicial to the interest <\/p>\n
of the security of the State; or<\/p>\n
(b)\twhere a case against him in respect of <\/p>\n
any criminal offence is under <\/p>\n
investigation, inquiry or trial:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that, except in case of an order of <\/p>\n
suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor-<\/p>\n
General in regard to a member of the Indian <\/p>\n
Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an <\/p>\n
Assistant Accountant-General or equivalent <\/p>\n
(other than a regular member of the Indian Audit <\/p>\n
and Accounts Service), where the order of <\/p>\n
suspension is made by an authority lower than <\/p>\n
the appointing authority, such authority shall <\/p>\n
forthwith report to the appointing authority the <\/p>\n
circumstances in which the order was made.<\/p>\n
(2)\tA Government servant shall be deemed to <\/p>\n
have been placed under suspension by an order of <\/p>\n
appointing authority \u2013<\/p>\n
(a)\twith effect from the date of his <\/p>\n
detention, if he is detained in custody, <\/p>\n
whether on a criminal charge or <\/p>\n
otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-<\/p>\n
eight hours;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(b)\twith effect from the date of his <\/p>\n
conviction, if, in the event of a <\/p>\n
conviction for an offence, he is <\/p>\n
sentenced to a term of imprisonment <\/p>\n
exceeding forty-eight hours and is not <\/p>\n
forthwith dismissed or removed or <\/p>\n
compulsorily retired consequent to such <\/p>\n
conviction.\n<\/p>\n
EXPLANATION \u2013 The period of forty-eight <\/p>\n
hours referred to in clause (b) of this sub-rule <\/p>\n
shall be computed from the commencement of the <\/p>\n
imprisonment after the conviction and for this <\/p>\n
purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, <\/p>\n
if any, shall be taken into account.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tWhere a penalty of dismissal, removal or <\/p>\n
compulsory retirement from service imposed upon <\/p>\n
a Government servant under suspension is set <\/p>\n
aside in appeal or on review under these rules <\/p>\n
and the case is remitted for further inquiry or <\/p>\n
action or with any other directions, the order <\/p>\n
of his suspension shall be deemed to have <\/p>\n
continued in force on and from the date of the <\/p>\n
original order of dismissal, removal or <\/p>\n
compulsory retirement and shall remain in force <\/p>\n
until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tWhere a penalty of dismissal, removal or <\/p>\n
compulsory retirement from service imposed upon <\/p>\n
a Government servant is set aside or declared or <\/p>\n
rendered void in consequence of or by a decision <\/p>\n
of a Court of Law and the disciplinary <\/p>\n
authority, on a consideration of the <\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, decides to hold a <\/p>\n
further inquiry against him on the allegations <\/p>\n
on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or <\/p>\n
compulsory retirement was originally imposed, <\/p>\n
the Government servant shall be deemed to have <\/p>\n
been placed under suspension by the Appointing <\/p>\n
Authority from the date of the original order of <\/p>\n
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and <\/p>\n
shall continue to remain under suspension until <\/p>\n
further orders:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no such further inquiry shall <\/p>\n
be ordered unless it is intended to meet a <\/p>\n
situation where the Court has passed an order <\/p>\n
purely on technical grounds without going into <\/p>\n
the merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n
(5)(a)  An order of suspension made or deemed to <\/p>\n
have been made under this rule shall continue to <\/p>\n
remain in force until it is modified or revoked <\/p>\n
by the authority competent to do so.\n<\/p>\n
5(b)\tWhere a Government servant is suspended <\/p>\n
or is deemed to have been suspended (whether in <\/p>\n
connection with any disciplinary proceeding or <\/p>\n
otherwise), and any other disciplinary <\/p>\n
proceeding is commenced against him during the <\/p>\n
continuance of that suspension, the authority <\/p>\n
competent to place him under suspension may, for <\/p>\n
reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct <\/p>\n
that the Government servant shall continue to be <\/p>\n
under suspension until the termination of all or <\/p>\n
any of such proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
5(c)\tAn order of suspension made or deemed to <\/p>\n
have been made under this rule may at any time <\/p>\n
be modified or revoked by the authority which <\/p>\n
made or is deemed to have made the order or by <\/p>\n
any authority to which that authority is <\/p>\n
subordinate.”\n<\/p>\n
Rule 10(2) is a deemed provision and creates a legal <\/p>\n
fiction. A bare reading of the provision shows that an <\/p>\n
actual order is not required to be passed. That is deemed <\/p>\n
to have been passed by operation of the legal fiction. It <\/p>\n
has as much efficacy, force and operation as an order <\/p>\n
otherwise specifically passed under other provisions.  It <\/p>\n
does not speak of any period of its effectiveness. Rules <\/p>\n
10(3) and 10(4) operate conceptually in different <\/p>\n
situations and need specific provisions separately on <\/p>\n
account of interposition of an order of Court of law or an <\/p>\n
order passed by the Appellate or reviewing authority and <\/p>\n
the natural consequences inevitably flowing from such <\/p>\n
orders.   Great emphasis is laid on the expressions “until <\/p>\n
further orders” in the said sub-rules to emphasise that <\/p>\n
such a prescription is missing in Sub-rule (2). Therefore, <\/p>\n
it is urged that the order is effective for the period of <\/p>\n
detention alone. The plea is clearly without any substance <\/p>\n
because of Sub-Rule 5(a) and 5(c) of Rule 10.  The said <\/p>\n
provisions refer to an order of suspension made or deemed <\/p>\n
to have been made. Obviously, the only order which is even <\/p>\n
initially deemed to have been made under Rule 10 is one <\/p>\n
contemplated under Sub-Rule (2). The said provision under <\/p>\n
Rule 10(5)(a) makes it crystal clear that the order <\/p>\n
continues to remain in force until it is modified or <\/p>\n
revoked by an authority competent to do so while Rule <\/p>\n
10(5)(c) empowers the competent authority to modify or <\/p>\n
revoke also. NO exception is made relating to an order <\/p>\n
under Rules 10(2) and 10(5)(a). On the contrary, <\/p>\n
specifically it encompasses an order under Rule 10(2). If <\/p>\n
the order deemed to have been made under Rule 10(2) is to <\/p>\n
loose effectiveness automatically after the period of <\/p>\n
detention envisaged comes to an end, there would be no <\/p>\n
scope for the same being modified as contended by the <\/p>\n
respondents and there was no need to make such provisions <\/p>\n
as are engrafted in Rule 10(5)(a) and (c) and instead an <\/p>\n
equally deeming provision to bring an end to the duration <\/p>\n
of the deemed order would by itself suffice for the <\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, it is clear that the order of suspension does not <\/p>\n
loose its efficacy and is not automatically terminated the <\/p>\n
moment the detention comes to an end and the person is set <\/p>\n
at large.  It could be modified and revoked by another <\/p>\n
order as envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that <\/p>\n
order is made, the same continues by the operation of Rule <\/p>\n
10(5)(a) and  the employee has no right to be re-instated <\/p>\n
to service. This position was also highlighted in <\/p>\n
Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra (AIR<\/a> 1968 <\/p>\n
SC 800). Indication of expression “pending further order” <\/p>\n
in the order of suspension was the basis for aforesaid <\/p>\n
view.\n<\/p>\n
Reference has been made to Sub-Rule 5(b) of Rule 10. <\/p>\n
According to the High Court the same appears to have been <\/p>\n
made “ex majori cautela”. Conceptually Sub-Rules 5(a) and <\/p>\n
5(b) operate in different fields and for different <\/p>\n
purposes, i.e., when more than one disciplinary <\/p>\n
proceedings come to be initiated to cover all such <\/p>\n
situations. Both the provisions have to be read <\/p>\n
harmoniously. Otherwise, Sub-Rule 5(a) would become <\/p>\n
meaningless and Sub-Rule 5(c) purposeless and both <\/p>\n
provisions would be rendered otiose and superfluous.  <\/p>\n
\tView of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court <\/p>\n
(supra) that the legal fiction created ceases to be <\/p>\n
effective for the purpose of suspension while operative <\/p>\n
for other purposes is clearly unsustainable and we do not <\/p>\n
approve of the same.\n<\/p>\n
It is well settled principle in law that the Court <\/p>\n
cannot read anything into a statutory provision or rewrite a <\/p>\n
provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an <\/p>\n
edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute <\/p>\n
or any statutory provision is the determinative factor of <\/p>\n
legislative intent of policy makers.\n<\/p>\n
Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental <\/p>\n
references to referents. The object of interpreting a <\/p>\n
statute or any statutory provision is to ascertain the <\/p>\n
intention of the Legislature  or the Authority enacting it. <\/p>\n
(See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M\/s <\/p>\n
Price Waterhouse and Anr.  (AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 74)) The intention <\/p>\n
of the maker is primarily to be gathered from the language <\/p>\n
used, which means that attention should be paid to what has <\/p>\n
been said as also to what has not been said. As a <\/p>\n
consequence, a construction which requires for its support, <\/p>\n
addition or substitution of words or which results in <\/p>\n
rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As <\/p>\n
observed in Crawford v. Spooner (1846 (6) Moore PC 1), <\/p>\n
Courts, cannot aid the Legislatures, defective phrasing of <\/p>\n
an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up <\/p>\n
deficiencies which are left there. (Also See The State of <\/p>\n
Gujarat and Ors. v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel and Anr. (JT<\/a> <\/p>\n
1998 (2) SC 253)). It is contrary to all rules of <\/p>\n
construction to read words into an Act unless it is <\/p>\n
absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Jones <\/p>\n
(Tiptan) Ltd. (1978 1 All ER 948 (HL). Rules of <\/p>\n
interpretation do not permit Courts to do so, unless the <\/p>\n
provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful <\/p>\n
meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act <\/p>\n
of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found <\/p>\n
within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord <\/p>\n
Loreburn L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans (1910) <\/p>\n
AC 445 (HL), quoted in Jamma Masjid, Mercara v. <\/p>\n
Kodimaniandra Deviah and Ors.<\/a>(AIR 1962 SC 847). <\/p>\n
The question is not what may be supposed and has been <\/p>\n
intended, but what has been said. “Statutes should be <\/p>\n
construed not as theorems of Euclid”. Judge Learned Hand <\/p>\n
said, “but words must be construed with some imagination of <\/p>\n
the purposes which lie behind them”. (See Lenigh Valley <\/p>\n
Coal Co. v. Yensavage 218 FR 547). The view was re-iterated <\/p>\n
in Union of India and Ors. v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem <\/p>\n
Vasco De Gama (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 981).\n<\/p>\n
In D.R. Venkatchalam and Ors. etc. v. Dy. Transport <\/p>\n
Commissioner and Ors. etc. (AIR 1977 SC 842), it was <\/p>\n
observed that Courts must avoid the danger of an a priori <\/p>\n
determination of the meaning of a provision based on their <\/p>\n
own pre-conceived notions of ideological structure or scheme <\/p>\n
into which the provision to be interpreted is somewhat <\/p>\n
fitted. They are not entitled to usurp legislative function <\/p>\n
under the disguise of interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
While interpreting a provision, the Court only <\/p>\n
interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision <\/p>\n
of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of <\/p>\n
law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal <\/p>\n
it, if deemed necessary. (See Commissioner of Sales Tax, <\/p>\n
M.P. v. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain<\/a> (2000 (5) SCC 515). <\/p>\n
The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial <\/p>\n
interpretative process.\n<\/p>\n
Two principles of construction \u2013 one relating to casus <\/p>\n
omissus and the other in regard to reading the <\/p>\n
statute\/statutory provision as a whole \u2013 appear to be well <\/p>\n
settled. Under the first principle a casus omissus cannot be <\/p>\n
supplied by the Court except in the case of clear necessity <\/p>\n
and when reason for it is found in the four corners of the <\/p>\n
statute itself. But, at the same time a casus omissus should <\/p>\n
not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts <\/p>\n
of a statute or section must be construed together and every <\/p>\n
clause of a section should be construed with reference to <\/p>\n
the context and other clauses thereof so that the <\/p>\n
construction to be put on a particular provision makes a <\/p>\n
consistent enactment of the whole statute. This would be <\/p>\n
more so if literal construction of a particular clause leads <\/p>\n
to manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not <\/p>\n
have been intended by the Legislature. “An intention  to <\/p>\n
produce an unreasonable result”, said Danackwerts, L.J. in <\/p>\n
Artemiou v. Procopiou (1966 1 QB 878), “is not to be <\/p>\n
imputed to a statute if there is some other construction <\/p>\n
available”. Where to apply words literally would “defeat <\/p>\n
the obvious intention of the legislation and produce a <\/p>\n
wholly unreasonable result” we must “do some violence to <\/p>\n
the words” and so achieve that obvious intention and <\/p>\n
produce a rational construction. (Per Lord Reid in Luke v. <\/p>\n
IRC (1966 AC 557) where at p. 577 he also observed: “this <\/p>\n
is not a new problem, though our standard of drafting is <\/p>\n
such that it rarely emerges”.\n<\/p>\n
It is then true that, “when the words of a law extend <\/p>\n
not to an inconvenience rarely happening, but do to those <\/p>\n
which often happen, it is good reason not to strain the <\/p>\n
words further than they reach, by saying it is casus <\/p>\n
omissus, and that the law intended quae frequentius <\/p>\n
accidunt.” “But,” on the other hand,”it is no reason, <\/p>\n
when the words of a law do enough extend to an inconvenience <\/p>\n
seldom happening, that they should not extend to it as well <\/p>\n
as if it happened more frequently, because it happens but <\/p>\n
seldom” (See Fenton v. Hampton 11 Moore, P.C. 345). A casus <\/p>\n
omissus ought not to be created by interpretation, save in <\/p>\n
some case of strong necessity. Where, however, a casus <\/p>\n
omissus does really occur, either through the inadvertence <\/p>\n
of the legislature, or on the principle quod semel aut bis <\/p>\n
existit proetereunt legislatores, the rule is that the <\/p>\n
particular case, thus left unprovided for, must be disposed <\/p>\n
of according to the law as it existed before such statute – <\/p>\n
Casus omissus et oblivioni datus dispositioni communis juris <\/p>\n
relinquitur; “a casus omissus,” observed Buller, J. in <\/p>\n
Jones v. Smart (1 T.R. 52), “can in no case be supplied by <\/p>\n
a court of law, for that would be to make laws.”<\/p>\n
The golden rule for construing wills, statutes, and, in <\/p>\n
fact, all written instruments has been thus stated: “The <\/p>\n
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered <\/p>\n
to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some <\/p>\n
repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, <\/p>\n
in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the <\/p>\n
words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and <\/p>\n
inconsistency, but no further” (See Grey v. Pearson 6 H.L. <\/p>\n
Case 61). The latter part of this “golden rule” must, <\/p>\n
however, be applied with much caution. “if,” remarked <\/p>\n
Jervis, C.J., “the precise words used are plain and <\/p>\n
unambiguous in our judgment, we are bound to construe them <\/p>\n
in their ordinary sense, even though it lead, in our view of <\/p>\n
the case, to an absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may <\/p>\n
be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or <\/p>\n
obscure. But we assume the functions of legislators when we <\/p>\n
depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used, <\/p>\n
merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or <\/p>\n
manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal <\/p>\n
meaning” (See Abley v. Dale 11, C.B. 378).<\/p>\n
\tThe inevitable conclusion therefore is that the order <\/p>\n
in terms of Rule 10(2) is not restricted in its point of <\/p>\n
duration or efficacy to the period of actual detention <\/p>\n
only. It continues to be operative unless modified or <\/p>\n
revoked under Sub-Rule 5(c), as provided under Sub-rule <\/p>\n
5(a).\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 10(5)(b) deals with a situation where a government <\/p>\n
servant is suspended or is deemed to have suspended and <\/p>\n
any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him <\/p>\n
during continuance of that suspension irrespective of the <\/p>\n
fact whether the earlier suspension was in connection with <\/p>\n
any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise. Rule 10 (5)(b) <\/p>\n
can be pressed into service only when any other  <\/p>\n
disciplinary proceeding is also commenced than the one for <\/p>\n
and during which suspension or deemed suspension was <\/p>\n
already in force, to meet the situation until the <\/p>\n
termination of all such proceedings.  In contradiction, <\/p>\n
Rule 10(5)(a) has application in relation to an order of <\/p>\n
suspension already made or deemed to have been made. Rule <\/p>\n
10(5)(b) has no application to the facts of the present <\/p>\n
case and no inspiration or support could be drawn for the <\/p>\n
stand taken for the respondents or the decision arrived at <\/p>\n
by the High Court. It is Rule 10(5)(a) alone which has <\/p>\n
application and the deemed suspension would continue to be <\/p>\n
in force till anything has been done under Rule 10(5)(c). <\/p>\n
Similarly, Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate in different <\/p>\n
fields and merely because a specific provision is made for <\/p>\n
its continuance, until further orders in them itself due <\/p>\n
to certain further developments taking place and <\/p>\n
interposition of orders made by Court or appellate and <\/p>\n
reviewing authority to meet and get over such specific <\/p>\n
eventualities, in given circumstances  and  that does not <\/p>\n
in any way affect the order of suspension deemed to have <\/p>\n
been made under Rule 10(2).\n<\/p>\n
Strong reliance was placed on Nelson Motis v. Union of <\/p>\n
India<\/a> (1992 (4) SCC 711) to contend that omission of the <\/p>\n
expression “until further orders” in Rule 10(2) was <\/p>\n
conscious and, therefore, the period covered for “deemed <\/p>\n
suspension” was restricted to period of detention. Such <\/p>\n
plea is without substance. In Nelson’s case (supra) the <\/p>\n
respective scope and ambit of Rule 10(2) and Rule 10(3) <\/p>\n
fell for consideration. As indicated above, the said <\/p>\n
provisions apply in conceptually and contextually <\/p>\n
different situations and have even no remote link with a <\/p>\n
situation envisaged under Rule 10(2). In fact, this Court <\/p>\n
in the said case categorically observed as under:<\/p>\n
\t“The comparison of the language with <\/p>\n
that of Sub-Rule (3) re-inforces the <\/p>\n
conclusion that Sub-Rule (4) has to be <\/p>\n
understood in the natural sense”.\n<\/p>\n
(underlined for emphasis).\n<\/p>\n
Another plea raised relates to a suspension for a very <\/p>\n
long period. It is submitted that the same renders the <\/p>\n
suspension invalid. The plea is clearly untenable. The <\/p>\n
period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged <\/p>\n
but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel <\/p>\n
that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because <\/p>\n
it is for a long period that does not invalidate the <\/p>\n
suspension.\n<\/p>\n
Some other pleas were pressed into service to contend <\/p>\n
that High Court’s order is justified. It is submitted that <\/p>\n
these stands were highlighted before the High Court though <\/p>\n
not specifically dealt with. Since the High Court has not <\/p>\n
dealt with these aspects, we do not take the other <\/p>\n
contentions into account to express any view.<\/p>\n
Though factually it is undisputed that fresh order of <\/p>\n
suspension had been passed in each case, the same relates <\/p>\n
to a separate cause of action and if any dispute is raised <\/p>\n
as regards its legality, the same has to be adjudicated by <\/p>\n
the concerned Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, <\/p>\n
on its own merits and in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
The impugned order of the High Court in each case <\/p>\n
stands quashed. The appeals are allowed leaving the <\/p>\n
parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 Author: J Arijit Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5007 of 2003 Appeal (civil) 5008 of 2003 PETITIONER: Union of India Union of India and Ors. RESPONDENT: Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-29T15:25:34+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T15:25:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4091,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T15:25:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-29T15:25:34+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T15:25:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003"},"wordCount":4091,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003","name":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T15:25:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-rajiv-kumar-bani-singh-on-18-july-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Rajiv Kumar Bani Singh on 18 July, 2003"}]},{"@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\/183059","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=183059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}