{"id":187281,"date":"2002-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-06-21T20:31:59","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T15:01:59","slug":"aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Radhakrishnan<\/div>\n
Bench: K Radhakrishnan, K P Nair<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Radhakrishnan, J.   <\/p>\n
 1. This writ of habeas corpus is preferred by the
\nwife of Abdul Salam Abu, S\/o Abdu Rahiman, who is under
\ndetention pursuant to detention order No
\n69324\/SSA\/4\/01\/ Home dated 27.12.2001 issued by the first
\nrespondent. Detenu was detained by the first respondent
\nin exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1)(i)
\nand (3)(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
\nPrevention  of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short
\nCOFEPOSA Act’).\n<\/p>\n
 2. Detenu was apprehended on 20.11.2001. H was
\na passenger of IC 598 of India Airlines coming from
\nSharja to Calicut. He was found to carry 90 mobile phones
\nand four movie cameras. One hundred and fifty numbers of
\ngold coins were also found out. A statement was recorded
\non the same day. He was also arrested at 10.00 p.m. and
\nwas produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri
\nat 11.00 a.m. on 21.11.2001 and was remanded to judicial
\ncustody till 4.12.2001. He moved bail application.
\nCrl. M.P. No. 11415 of 2001 in O.S. No. 18 of 2001 before the
\nAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence).
\nErnakulam. Bail was granted to him on 11.12.2001. While
\nhe was on bail order of detention was passed on
\n27.12.2001 detaining him in  Central Prison,
\nThiruvananthapuram.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The only contention raised by the counsel for
\nthe petitioner is that while the detenu was detained under
\nthe COFEPOSA Act he was on bail granted by a competent
\ncriminal court. Counsel submitted that application for
\nbail and the order granting bail are vital documents but
\nwere not noticed, adverted to and considered by the
\ndetaining authority and consequently the order of
\ndetention is vitiated. Counsel made reference to the
\ndecisions of the apex Court in   M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of
\nIndia<\/a>   (1990 (2) S.C.C. 1),   Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Sait v.
\nUnion of India<\/a>   (1992 (1) SCC) and the decisions of this
\ncourt in   Ashraf v. State of Kerala   (2001 (1) KLJ 684) and
\n  Hajra v. State of Kerala   (1997 (1) KLT 597). Reference
\nwas also made to the decision of the apex court in
\n  Chowdarabu Raghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu   (2002
\nS.C.C. (CrL.) 714) and the decision of this court in O.P. No
\n7571 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
\nthat when the sponsoring authority has made available the
\nbail application and the order granting bail, it must be
\ntaken that the detaining authority had before it the said
\nbail application and the order granting bail and formed
\nits subjective satisfaction and passed the detention order
\nin exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3(i)(i)
\nand 3(1)(iii of the COFEPOSA Act. The fact that there is
\nno reference about the bail application and the order
\ngranting bail in the detention order does not mean that
\nthe detaining authority has not applied its mind while
\npassing the order of detention. We find it difficult to
\naccept the contention advanced on behalf of the
\nrespondents. The apex curt in   M. Ahamedkutty’s case.
\nsupra (1990 (2) SCC 1) stated that the bail application
\nand the bail order are vital documents. We may extract
\nrelevant portion of the judgment for easy reference.\n<\/p>\n
  “Considering the facts in the instant case, the
\nbail application and the bail order were vital
\nmaterials for consideration. If those were not
\nconsidered the satisfaction of the detaining
\nauthority itself would have been impaired, and if
\nthose had been considered, they would be documents
\nrelied on by the detaining authority though not
\nspecifically mentioned in the annexure to the
\norder of detention and those ought to have formed
\npart of the documents supplied to the detenu with
\ngrounds of detention and without them the grounds
\nthemselves could not be said to have; been
\ncomplete. We have therefore, no alternative but
\nto hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu’s
\nright to make an effective representation and that
\nit resulted in violation of Article 22 (5) of the
\nConstitution of India rendering the continued
\ndetention of the detenu illegal and entitling the
\ndetenu to be set at liberty in this case.”\n<\/p>\n
 This question again came up for consideration before the
\napex court in   Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of
\nIndia and Ors.<\/a>   (1992 (1)SCC 1). After analysing the
\nvarious decisions, the apex court laid down several
\npropositions of which we are concerned in this case with
\nproposition No.6, which is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
  “In a case where detenu is released on bail and
\nis at liberty at the time of passing the order of
\ndetention,  then the detaining authority has to
\nnecessarily rely upon them as that would be a
\nvital ground for ordering detention. In such a
\ncase the bail application and the order granting
\nbail should necessarily be placed before the
\nauthority and the copies should also be supplied
\nto the detenu.”\n<\/p>\n
 A Bench of this Court in   Ashraff v. State of Kerala   (2001
\n(1) KLJ 684) followed the abovementioned decision and held
\nthat bail application and the order of bail are all vital
\ndocuments and the detaining authority is bound to consider
\nthe same. The court also held that the contents of the
\nbail application and the manner in which bail application
\nwas considered by the Magistrate and the ground on which
\nhe was satisfied of granting bail would also have a
\nbearing in the formation of the subjective satisfaction of
\nthe detaining authoirty in passing the detention order
\nsince those documents are vital documents.\n<\/p>\n
 5. In this connection we may also refer to the
\nrecent decision of the apex court in   Chowdarabu
\nRaghunandan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.   (2002 S.C.C.
\nCrl. 714). In that case apex court was considering the
\nprovisions of the COFEPOSA Act and emphasised the
\nnecessity of adverting to vital documents and held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
  “Though the courts exercising powers of judicial
\nreview do not consider the challenges to an order
\nof detention as if on an appeal reappreciating the
\nmaterials, yet since an order of detention in
\nprison involves the fundamental rights of a life
\nand liberty, no absolute immunity can be claimed
\nby the respondents as to the decision arrived at
\nand it is open to the courts to see whether there
\nhas been due and proper application of mind and
\nthat all the relevant and vital materials for the
\npurpose have been noticed, adverted to and considered.”\n<\/p>\n
 We have indicated that when a competent court grants bail
\non the basis of an application filed by the detenu
\ngrounds urged in the bail application as well as the order
\ngranting bail are vital documents to be examined by the
\ndetaining authority. It is always open to the detaining
\nauthority to come to its own subjective satisfaction on
\nthe basis of those materials. We have already indicated
\nthose are all vital materials to be considered by the
\ndetaining authority. In this case the bail application
\nand the order granting bail are vital documents since the
\ncompetent court has granted bail on certain grounds and
\nhence those documents are to be adverted to and
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Incidentally we may also point out that the
\ndecisions in   Ahamedkutty’s case   (1990 (2) SCC 1) and Abdul
\nSathar Ibrahim Manik’s case (1992 (1) SCC 1)  came up for
\nconsideration before the apex court in   K. Varadaraj v.
\nState of Tamil Nadu   (2002 SCCL Com 448). That was a case
\narose out of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
\nActivities of Bottleggers. Drug Offenders, Forest
\nOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum
\nGrabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). In that
\ncase before the detention order was passed on 8.11.2001.
\ndetenu was arrested for indulging in the trade of
\nbootlegging. Pursuant to the arrest he made an
\napplication for bail and as per order dated 19.10.2001
\nbail was granted to him and the court directed him to be
\nreleased on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 5.00\/with
\ntwo sureties for the like sums, each to the satisfaction of
\nthe Judicial Magistrate. Krishnagiri, Bail was granted
\nsince no objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor.
\nHowever, he was not released on bail since he failed to
\ncomply with the conditions imposed while granting bail and
\nconsequently continued to be in custody. Order of
\ndetention was passed on 8.11.2001. When the detention
\norder was passed, detaining authority did not have before
\nit the application for bail nor the order passed thereon
\nby the Sessions Judge. However, detaining authority took
\ninto consideration remand order made by the court to note
\nthe fact that the detenu was in police custody.
\nContention was raised before the High Court by the detenu
\nthat application for bail preferred by him as well as the
\norder on it were not placed before the detaining
\nauthority. Consequently order of detention was vitiated.
\nThe High Court however rejected the contention noticing
\nthat the detenu did not come out on bail and he had
\nremained to be on remand in prison on the basis of the
\norder bail application or the order made thereon were on
\nrelevant material. The apex court after considering its
\nearlier decision in   Abdul Sathar’s case   held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “We have considered the argument advanced on
\nbehalf of the parties as also perused the records.
\nThe issue that arises for our consideration in
\nthis case is not really res integra. In the case
\nof Ahamedkutty (supra), this court held:
\n“Considering the facts the bail application and
\nthe bail order were vital materials for
\nconsideration. If those were not considered the
\nsatisfaction of the detaining authority itself
\nwould have been impaired…..” It is based on this
\nobservation of the court that learned counsel for
\nthe appellant argued that non-consideration of the
\nbail application and order made thereon would
\nvitiate the order of detention. But we should
\nnotice that the said observation of this court was
\nmade on facts of that case, therefore, we cannot
\nread into that observation of this court that in
\nevery case where their is an application for bail
\nand an order made thereon the detaining authority
\nmust as a rule be made aware of the said
\napplication and order made thereon. In our
\nopinion the need of placing such application and
\norder before the detaining authority would arise
\non the contents of those documents. If the
\ndocuments do contain some  material which on facts
\nof that case would have some bearing on the
\nsubjective satisfaction of the detaining authority
\nthen like any other vital material even this
\ndocument may have to be placed before the
\ndetaining authority. In our opinion, the judgement
\nof this court in Ahamedkutty (supra) does not lay
\ndown a mandatory principle law that in every case
\nthe application for bail and the order made
\nthereon should be placed before the court. We are
\nsupported in this view of ours by the judgment
\nrelied on by the State in Abdul Sathar (supra).”\n<\/p>\n
 After holding so, apex court further held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “From the facts of this case, we must note that
\nthe fact that the detenu was in custody was taken
\nnote of by the detaining authority by reference to
\nhis remand order therefore that is a vital fact
\nwhich is taken note of by the court. The contents
\nof the bail application also in our opinion do not
\ncontain any vital material notice of which the
\ndetaining authority had to take. However, in our
\nopinion there was a vital fact in the order of the
\ncourt notice of which ought to have been taken by
\nthe detaining authority. The said fact is that
\nthe court specifically noted in the bail order
\nthat the Public Prosecutor had no objection for
\ngrant of bail therefore the court was inclined to
\ngrant bail to the appellant. This is a
\ncircumstances, in our opinion, which ought to have
\nbeen noticed by the detaining authority because
\nthe counsel representing the State in express
\nterms said that he which would also mean his
\nclient which is the State, did not have any
\nobjection to the grant of bail. Therefore in our
\nopinion this is a vital fact notice of which the
\ndetaining authority ought to have taken.”\n<\/p>\n
 Counsel for the respondents submitted that as opined by
\nthe apex court in   Ahamedkutty’s case  , there is no general
\nproposition that whenever bail is granted on application
\nmade by the detenu application and the bail order are
\nvital documents to be considered by the detaining
\nauthority, consequently non mentioning of the bail
\napplication and the bail order in the detention order
\nwould not vitiate the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
 7. We find it difficult to accept the above
\ncontention of the respondents. Apex court in Varadaraj’s
\ncase has noted that it is not correct to say in every case
\nthere is an application for bail and the order made
\nthereon and the detaining authority must as a rule be made
\naware of the said application and the order made thereon.
\nNeed of placing such an order and the application would
\narise on the contents of those documents. If the
\ndocument do contain some materials which wold enable to
\nform subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority it
\nhas to be placed before the detaining authority. In the
\nabove mentioned case apex court has found that the
\nconcession made by the Prosecutor is a relevant factor
\nwhich ought to have been taken note of, when an order is
\npassed by a competent court granting bail after hearing
\nthe counsel for the accused as well as the prosecutor on
\nmerits subject to certain conditions we are of the view
\nthe said order is also a vital document though not an
\norder passed on concession by the criminal court. Order
\npassed by the criminal court on concession made by the
\nprosecutor as well as the order passed by the criminal
\ncourt after hearing both sides is also a vital document.
\nAs far as this case is concerned order passed by the
\ncriminal court granting bail is a conditional one and t he
\nconditions are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 (1) The accused shall execute bond for Rs.50,000\/-
\nwith two solvent sureties for the like sum.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) The accused shall appear before the
\ninvestigating officer on every Monday and Friday
\nfor two months or till the investigation is over
\nwhichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) The accused shall not leave the country
\nwithout the permission of this court.\n<\/p>\n
 We are of the view that detaining authority has to
\nconsider whether the conditions imposed by the criminal
\ncourt while granting bail would be sufficient to safeguard
\nits interest or continued detention is necessary under the
\nCOFEPOSA Act. This is a vital fact to be gone into by the
\ndetaining authority. It is always open to the detaining
\nauthoirty to detain a person de hors the conditions
\nimposed by the criminal court but that is a fact to be
\ntaken into consideration by the detaining authority to
\nfrom its subjective satisfaction while passing the
\ndetention order. In this case we find detenu was already
\non bail subject to certain conditions. Detaining
\nauthority had not noticed, adverted to and considered that
\nfact. Consequently the order of detention is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Counsel appearing for the sponsoring authority
\nhowever submitted that even if the detention order is
\nvitiated by procedural infirmity, detaining authority may
\nbe permitted to pass fresh orders rectifying the
\nprocedural defects. Counsel laid stress on the decision
\nof the apex Court in   Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of
\nPunjab   (AIR<\/a> 1952 S.C. 106) which was  referred to by the
\napex court in a later decision in   Sanjay Dutt v. State
\n(1994(5) SCC 410). Counsel appearing for the detenu
\nhowever submitted that if the court finds that the order
\nof detention is invalid and it is set aside, the detaining
\nauthority has no jurisdiction to pass fresh orders. In
\nany view of the matter, counsel submitted that in the
\ninstant case such a power cannot be exercised since the
\nperiod of detention is about to expire. We are of the
\nview in the instant case it may not be possible for the
\ndetaining authority to pass fresh detention order since
\nonly a few more months remain for the detenu to be
\nreleased. However, we may add in appropriate cases where
\nthere are procedural infirmities, the detaining authority
\ncan pass fresh orders after clearing the procedural
\ndefects. We find in this case detaining authority had
\nfailed to take note of the bail application and the order
\ngranting bail. Consequently mandatory requirement has not
\nbeen complied with by the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n
 9. We are of the view in appropriate case it
\nwould be possible to cure such defects and pass fresh
\ndetention orders. We are fortified in this view by the
\ndecision of the apex court in   Naranjan Singh’s case  ,
\nsupra, (AIR 1952 S.C. 106) wherein the apex court after
\nreferring to the earlier decision in   Makkan Singh v.
\nState of Punjab   (AIR 1952 S.C. 27) held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “Indeed, the position is now made more clear by
\nthe express provisions of Section 13 of the Act which
\nprovides that a detention order may at any time be
\nrevoked or modified and that such revocation shall
\nnot bar the making of a fresh detention order
\nunder Section 3 against the same person. Once it is
\nconceded that in habeas corpus proceedings the
\nCourt is to have regard to the legality or
\notherwise of the detnetion at the time of the
\nreturn and not with reference to the date of the
\ninstitution of the proceeding, it is difficult to
\nhold, in the absence of proof of bad faith, that
\nthe detaining authority cannot supersede an
\nearlier order of detention challenged as illegal
\nand make a fresh  order wherever possible which is
\nfree from defects and duly complies with the
\nrequirements of the law in that behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
 Counsel appearing for the detenu is justified in
\ncontending that on the same set of facts a fresh order of
\ndetention cannot be passed but in a case where vital
\ndocuments were not adverted to or noticed and considered
\nwhile passing the detention order the detaining authority
\ncould look into all those vital documents omitted to be
\nconsidered and pass a fresh order of detention. We
\ntherefore quash the order of detention subject to the
\nabove observation and set the detenu at liberty unless he
\nis required in connection with any other case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002 Author: Radhakrishnan Bench: K Radhakrishnan, K P Nair JUDGMENT Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This writ of habeas corpus is preferred by the wife of Abdul Salam Abu, S\/o Abdu Rahiman, who is under detention pursuant to detention order […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T15:01:59+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aysha Nazreem, W\\\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T15:01:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3025,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Aysha Nazreem, W\\\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T15:01:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aysha Nazreem, W\\\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T15:01:59+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T15:01:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002"},"wordCount":3025,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002","name":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam ... vs Government Of Kerala, ... on 19 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T15:01:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aysha-nazreem-wo-abdus-salam-vs-government-of-kerala-on-19-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aysha Nazreem, W\/O. Abdus Salam … vs Government Of Kerala, … on 19 September, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187281","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=187281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187281\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}