{"id":188517,"date":"1984-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984"},"modified":"2015-12-28T08:18:48","modified_gmt":"2015-12-28T02:48:48","slug":"nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","title":{"rendered":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 84, \t\t 1985 SCR (2)\t 1<\/div>\n
Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n
Bench: Pathak, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNEPAL SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U. P. ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/11\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nMADON, D.P.\nTHAKKAR, M.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR   84\t\t  1985 SCR  (2)\t  1\n 1985 SCC  (1)\t56\t  1984 SCALE  (2)693\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1986 SC1626\t (30)\n RF\t    1991 SC1490\t (3)\n RF\t    1992 SC 496\t (26)\n\n\nACT:\n     Public Service-Termination\t of Service  of a  temporary\ngovernment servant  on\tthe  allegation\t of  misconduct\t and\ncorruption without following provisions of Article 311(2) of\nthe Constitution is void and violative of Articles 14 and 16\nCompetent  Authorities\tcannot\tcircumvent  the\t mandate  of\nArticle 311(2) and resort to the guise of ex-facie innocuous\ntermination order-U.P.\tGovernment  Servants  Conduct  Rules\n1956, Rule  29 read  with Constitution\tof  India,  Articles\n14,16 and 311 (2). D\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On an  allegation that  the appellant, a temporary Sub-\ninspector  of\tPolice,\t while\tposted\tat  Pithoragarh\t had\ncontracted in  November 1964  a second\tmarriage, while\t his\nfirst wife was alive, without obtaining the prior permission\nof the\tGovernment and\tin violation of Rule 29 of the U. P.\nGovernment Servants'  Conduct Rules, 1956 the Superintendent\nof  Police,  Shahjahanpur  initiated  in  1968\tdisciplinary\nproceedings under section 7 of the Police Act against him. 1\nHowever, after\tthe evidence was closed in January 1970, the\nSuperintendent\tnoticed\t  that\this   action   was   without\njurisdiction  and   pointed  out  the  same  lo\t the  Deputy\nInspector General of Police, Bareilly Range, who ordered the\nquashing of the disciplinary proceedings on March 12, 1970.\n     About this\t time the Inspector General of Police, Uttar\nPradesh issued\ta circular  letter to  the Superintendent of\nPolice throughout  the State requiring them to submit a list\nof Sub-Inspectors  who fell  in any  of the  following three\ncategories:\n 1.  Whose reputation and integrity is very low and\/or\n 2.  Who are  generally involved in scandals, like drinking,\n     immorality, etc.  which blackens  the face of the U. P.\n     Police and\/or\n 3.  Everywhere\t they\tare  a\t big  problem  because\tthey\n     encourage\t gambling,    excise   offences,   brothels,\n     criminals, etc.\n     The Superintendent\t of Police,  Shahjahanpur drew\tup a\nlist of such Sub-Inspectors on February S, 1970 and directed\nthem to\t appear\t before\t the  Deputy  Inspector\t General  of\nPolice, Bareilly Range on February 10, 1970 during his\n2\ninspection of  the district.  The list\tincluded the name of\nthe appellant with the note:\n\t\"A corrupt  officer, who  is not  straight  forward.\n     Married two  wives against\t Government Servants Conduct\n     Rules. Does not do his duty sincerely. Wherever he goes\n     creates problem\".\n     Thereupon, on  April 27,  1970,  the  Deputy  Inspector\nGeneral of  Police, Bareilly Range, made an order purporting\nto be  under the  rules published  by Notification  No. 230\/\n1953 dated  January 30,\t 1953 that  the appellant's services\nwere not  required any\tmore and  were terminated  with\t one\nmonth's pay in lieu of notice.\n     The appellant  thereupon filed  a Writ  Petition in the\nHigh Court against the order terminating his services and on\nNovember 17,  1972 a  learned Single  Judge of the Allahabad\nHigh Court  dismissed the  Writ Petition  holding  that\t the\norder of  termination was  passed bonafide,  that it  was an\norder  of  termination\tsimpliciter  and  that\tit  did\t not\nconstitute the\tremoval of  the appellant  from service.  On\nappeal filed  by the  appellant that  vice was endorsed by a\nDivision Bench\tof the\tHigh Court by its judgment and order\ndated March  13, 1973  and the\tappeal was dismissed holding\nthat the impugned order was ex-facie innocuous and could not\nbe said\t to cast  any stigma  or be regarded as imposing the\npunishment of  dismissal or  removal. Hence  the  appeal  by\nSpecial Leave of the Court.\n     Allowing the appeal, the Court\n^\n     HELD; 1.  It is  well settled  that in  dealing with  a\ngovernment  servant   the  State   must\t  conform   to\t the\nconstitutional requirements  of Articles  14 and  16 of\t the\nConstitution. An  arbitrary exercise  of power\tby the State\nviolates these\tconstitutional guarantees, for a fundamental\nimplication in\tthe guarantee  of equality and of protection\nagainst discrimination\tis that fair and just treatment will\nbe accorded  to all,  whether individually  or jointly\tas a\nclass. When  a government  servant satisfies the Court prima\nfacie  that  an\t order\tterminating  his  services  violates\nArticles 14  and 16  the competent  authority must discharge\nthe burden  of showing\tthat  the  power  to  terminate\t the\nservices was  exercised honestly and in good faith, on valid\nconsiderations fairly and without discrimination. [S-E-G]\n     2. Where  the  services  of  a  government\t servant  on\ntemporary appointment  arc terminated on the ground that his\nreputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention\nin the\tservice, the reputation for corrupt behavior must be\nbased on  something more  than a mere allegation. The State,\nand for\t that matter  any statutory employer must take great\ncare when  proceeding to terminate a career on the ground of\nunsuitability,\tto   ensure  that  its\torder  is  found  in\ndefinable material, objectively assessed and relevant to the\nground on which the termination is effected. [6-C-E]\n     In the  instant case,  the Superintendent of Police did\nnot apply  his mind  to the  requirements of  the case.\t The\nSuperintendent of Police has noted that the\n3\nappellant created  problems wherever  he went, but it is not\ndisclosed in  the   affidavits what  those problems were and\nthat the  problems were of the nature specifically indicated\nby the\tcircular issued\t by the Inspector General of Police.\nThe  other   grounds  mentioned\t  in  the   report  of\t the\nSuperintendent of Police are equally vague and unspecific. [\n6A-B]\n     3. Where  allegations of misconduct are leveled against\na Government  Servant, and it is : case where the provisions\nof Article  311 (2) of the Constitution should be applied(l,\nit is  not open\t to the competent authority to take the view\nthat holding the enquiry contemplated by the clause would be\na bother  or a nuisance and that therefore it is entitled to\navoid the  mandate of that provision and resort to the guise\nof an  ex-facie innocuous  termination order. The Court will\nview with  great disfavour  any attempt\t to  circumvent\t the\nconstitutional provision  of Article 311 (2) in a case where\nthat provision comes into play.\n\t\t\t\t\t       [6-G-H, 7A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 621 of
\n1975<\/span>
\n     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated the  13th March,\t1973 of\t the Allahabad High Court in
\nSpecial Appeal No.9 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     R.K Garg and M. Qamaruddin for the Appellant.
\n     Prithvi Raj and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court WCIS delivered by
\n     PATHAK, J\tThis appeal  by special\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst the  judgment and  order of the Allahabad High Court
\ndismissing the\tappellant’s writ  petition against  an order
\nterminating his services.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant, Nepal Singh, was employed in a temporary
\ncapacity as  Sub-Inspector of  Police.\tHe  was\t serving  at
\nShahjahanpur in\t 1968 when  the\t Superintendent\t of  Police,
\nShahjahanpur initiated disciplinary proceedings under S.7 of
\nthe Police  Act against\t him on the charge that while posted
\nat Pithoragarh\the had,\t in  November,\t1964,  contracted  a
\nsecond marriage\t while his first wife was alive, and as this
\nwas done  without obtaining  the  prior\t permission  of\t the
\nGovernment the\tappellant had  violated Rule  29 of the U.P.
\nGovernment Servants’  Conduct  Rules,  1956.  The  appellant
\nfiled a\t reply and  denied the charge. The oral testimony of
\nabout twelve  witnesses for  the prosecution  and an  almost
\nequal number  for the  defence was recorded. But in January,
\n1970 the Superintendent
\n4<\/span>
\nof  Police,  Shahjahanpur  wrote  to  the  Deputy  Inspector
\nGeneral of  Police, Bareilly  Range that  as the act alleged
\nagainst the appellant related to the district of Pithoragarh
\nthe disciplinary  proceedings taken  by him would be without
\njurisdiction unless there was an existing order transferring
\nthe   proceedings    from   Pithoragarh\t  to   Shahjahanpur.
\nAccordingly, on March 12,1 970, the Deputy Inspector General
\nof Police,  Bareilly  Range  ordered  the  quashing  of\t the
\ndisciplinary proceedings.  It appears that no further action
\nwas taken and the proceedings were dropped.\n<\/p>\n
     About this\t time the Inspector General of Police, Uttar
\nPradesh issued\ta circular  letter to the Superintendents of
\nPolice throughout  the State requiring them to submit a list
\nof Sub\tInspector who  fell in\tany of\tthe following  three
\ncategories:\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  Whose reputation and integrity is very low and\/or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Who  are  generally  involved\t in  scandals,\tlike
\n\t  drinking, immorality\tetc. which blackens the face
\n\t  of the U.P. Police’ and\/or.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  Everywhere they  are a  big problem  because\tthey
\n\t  encourage  gambling,\texcise\toffences,  brothels,
\n\t  criminals, etc.
\n     The Superintendent\t of Police,  Shahjahanpur drew\tup a
\nlist of such Sub-Inspectors on February S, 1970 and directed
\nthem to\t appear\t before\t the  Deputy  Inspector\t General  of
\nPolice, Bareilly  Range on  February  10,  1970\t during\t his
\ninspection of  the district.  The list\tincluded the name of
\nthe appellant with the note;\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A corrupt  officer, who  is not straight forward.
\n     Married two  wives against\t Government Servants Conduct
\n     Rules. ‘  Does not\t do his\t duty sincerely. Wherever he
\n     goes creates problem.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thereupon,\t on   April  27,1970  the  Deputy  Inspector
\nGeneral of  Police, Bareilly Range, made an order purporting
\nto be  under the rules published by Notification No. 230\/II-
\nB-1953 dated  January 30, 1953 that the appellant’s services
\nwere not  required any\tmore and  were terminated  with\t one
\nmonth’s pay in lieu of notice.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court
\nagainst
\n5<\/span>
\nthe order terminating his services and on November 17,1972 a
\nlearned A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed
\nthe writ  petition holding that the order of termination was
\npassed\tbonafide   that\t it  was  an  order  of\t termination
\nsimpliciter, and  that it  did not constitute the removal of
\nthe appellant  from service.  That  view  was  endorsed,  on
\nappeal filed  by the  appellant, by  a Division Bench of the
\nHigh Court  by its  judgment and  order dated March 13,1973.
\nThe learned  judges have  taken the  view that\tthe case  in
\nrespect of  the appellant was covered by the first and third
\nof the\tthree categories enumerated earlier, that is to say,
\nhis integrity  was low\tand he\twas a  problem officer ‘ who
\nencouraged gambling,  excise offences,\tbrothels, criminals,
\netc.” The  allegation that  he had married two wives against
\nthe Government\tServants Conduct  Rules, 1956,\tthe  learned
\nJudges said,  did not  bring him  within any  of  the  three
\ncategories as,\tin their  view, the  second marriage without
\nprior permission  of the  Government gave  rise merely\tto a
\ntinkle charge.\tIn view\t of the\t opinion that  the  impugned
\norder was  ex facie  innocuous and could not be said to cast
\nany stigma  or be  regarded as\timposing the  punishment  of
\ndismissal or  removal,\tthe  learned  Judges  dismissed\t the
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
     It seems  to us  that the\tHigh  Court  has  failed  to
\nconsider the  true  content  of\t the  case  set\t up  by\t the
\nappellant. The entire thrust of the appellant’s case is that
\nin  terminating\t  the  appellant’s  Services  the  competent
\nauthority treated  him unfairly\t and arbitrarily. It is well
\nsettled that  in dealing with a Government servant the state
\nmust conform  to the constitutional requirements of Arts. 14
\nand 16\tof the\tConstitution. An arbitrary exercise of power
\nby the State violates those constitutional guarantees, for a
\nfundamental implication\t in the guarantee of equality and of
\nprotection against  discrimination is  that  fair  and\tjust
\ntreatment will\tbe accorded  to all, whether individually or
\njointly as  a class. When a Government servant satisfies the
\nCourt prima  facie that\t an order  terminating his  services
\nviolates Arts.\t14 and\t16,  the  competent  authority\tmust
\ndischarge the  burden of showing that the power to terminate
\nthe services  was exercised  honestly and  in good faith, on
\nvalid considerations fairly and without discrimination.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court has  observed that within the framework
\nof the\tthree categories  defined in the Inspector General’s
\ncircular  the\tallegation  of\ta  second  marriage  by\t the
\nappellant was  of no  significance, and\t that the  principal
\nintent in terminating the appellant’s.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
services was  to rid the State of an unsuitable officer. The
\nSuperintendent\tof  Police  has\t noted\tthat  the  appellant
\ncreated problems  wherever he  went, but it is not disclosed
\nin the\taffidavits what\t were those  “problems”. It  is\t not
\nshown that  the problems  were of  the\tnature\tspecifically
\nindicated by the circular issued by the Inspector General of
\nPolice We are unable to conclude from the material before us
\nthat the  Superintendent of  Police applied  his mind to the
\nrequirements of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     The Superintendent\t of Police  has also  commented that
\nthe  appellant\t was  a\t  corrupt  officer   who   was\t not
\nstraightforward (whatever  that might mean). On that we have
\nthis to say. Where the a services of a Government servant on
\ntemporary appointment  are terminated on the ground that his
\nreputation for corruption makes him unsuitable for retention
\nin the\tservice, the reputation for corrupt behavior must be
\nbased on  something more  than a  mere allegation. The other
\ngrounds mentioned  in the  report of  the  Superintendent of
\nPolice, which  impressed the  High Court, appear to us to be
\nequally vague and unspecific. The State, and for that matter
\nany statutory employer, must take great care when proceeding
\nto terminate  a career\ton the\tground of  unsuitability, to
\nensure that  its order\tis founded  in\tdefinable  material,
\nobjectively assessed and relevant to the ground on which the
\ntermination is effected.\n<\/p>\n
     Proceeding from  there, we\t may  advert  to  a  further
\naspect of the case. It would seem that the dominating factor
\nwhich influenced the mind of the Deputy Inspector General of
\nPolice was  the allegation  that the appellant had married a
\nsecond wife  against the  Government Servants’ Conduct Rules
\nit is  clear that a full-fledged enquiry was instituted into
\nthe matter,  evidence was  recorded but\t before any findings
\ncould be  rendered the\tenquiry\t was  dropped  for  want  of
\njurisdiction. No  attempt was  made thereafter\tto institute
\nproper\tenquiry\t  by  the   appropriate\t authority.  In\t the
\ncircumstances, it  was not  open to  the  Superintendent  of
\nPolice to  mention in  his report,  as a  statement of fact,
\nthat the  appellant had\t married a  second time\t against the
\nGovernment Servants’ Conduct Rules. With the dropping of the
\nenquiry the  allegation remained  unverified. We may observe
\nthat where  allegations of misconduct are levelled against a
\nGovernment servant, and it is a case where the provisions of
\nArt. 311(2) of the Constitution should be applied, it is not
\nopen to\t the competent\tauthority  to  take  the  view\tthat
\nholding the  enquiry contemplated  by that clause would be a
\nbother or a nuisance and
\n7<\/span>
\nthat therefore\tit is  entitled to avoid the mandate of that
\nprovision and  resort to  the guise of an ex facie innocuous
\ntermination order. A The Court will view with great disfavor
\nany attempt  to circumvent  the constitutional\tprovision of
\nArt.311 (2)in a case where that provision comes into play.\n<\/p>\n
     For all  the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to uphold
\nthe judgment  and order of the High Court, and in the result
\nthe appeal must he allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is allowed  and the  order dated  April 27,
\n1970  of  the  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Police,\tU.P.
\nBareilly Circle\t is quashed. The appellant is entitled to be
\ntreated as  continuing in  service without  interruption. It
\nwill be\t open to  the authorities  to take fresh proceedings
\nagainst the  appellant in  accordance with law. It will also
\nbe open\t to them  to determine\twhether\t the  appellant\t was
\ngainfully employed for the purpose of considering the extent
\nof relief,  if any,  to which he may be entitled pursuant to
\nour present  order  quashing  the  impugned  order.  In\t the
\ncircumstances, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S. R\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n8<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 84, 1985 SCR (2) 1 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. PETITIONER: NEPAL SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U. P. ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/11\/1984 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. MADON, D.P. THAKKAR, M.P. (J) […]<\/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-188517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - 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\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-28T02:48:48+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T02:48:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\"},\"wordCount\":1569,\"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\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\",\"name\":\"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-28T02:48:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - 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\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-28T02:48:48+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984","datePublished":"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T02:48:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984"},"wordCount":1569,"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\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984","name":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-28T02:48:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nepal-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-november-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nepal Singh vs State Of U. P. Ors on 9 November, 1984"}]},{"@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\/188517","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=188517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}