{"id":191084,"date":"2010-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-27T19:08:29","modified_gmt":"2018-04-27T13:38:29","slug":"suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 165 of 2005(T)\n\n\n1. SUHARAKUNJU, W\/O.LATE MOHAMMED\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :16\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n            ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                  W.P.(C) No. 165 of 2005 T\n            ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n         Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
          Petitioner is the widow of late Sri. Mohammed<\/p>\n
Aboobacker Labba. Late Sri.Labba was a freedom fighter who<\/p>\n
actively participated in the freedom struggle in the erstwhile<\/p>\n
Travancore State. Ext.P1 order shows that he was a recipient<\/p>\n
of pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension<\/p>\n
Scheme. Averments in the writ petition also show that<\/p>\n
recognising him as a freedom fighter, the Government of India<\/p>\n
awarded ‘Thamra Pathra’ to him.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   During his life time, on 03-12-1973, Sri.Labba<\/p>\n
submitted Ext.P2 application for the grant of pension payable<\/p>\n
under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The<\/p>\n
application was kept pending and meanwhile, Sri.Labba<\/p>\n
breathed his last on 11-09-1979. Petitioner, his wife, pursued<\/p>\n
the matter by filing various representations, one of which is<\/p>\n
Ext.P3. Eventually the claim made by Sri.Labba was rejected.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                               : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
That order of rejection was challenged before this Court in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.28531\/2000. That Original Petition was disposed of by<\/p>\n
this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6 judgment, taking<\/p>\n
note of the submission that Sri.Labba was convicted to<\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment in connection with the freedom<\/p>\n
struggle for a period of six months and that the certificate that<\/p>\n
Sri.Labba had undergone actual imprisonment of only two<\/p>\n
months alone did not disqualify him, and that the case dealt<\/p>\n
with by this Court in W.A.1717\/2000 was identical, this Court<\/p>\n
held that the order rejecting the claim made by Sri.Labba was<\/p>\n
unsustainable     and  directed     that his  claim   shall   be<\/p>\n
reconsidered     by  the    Government     of  Kerala,   on    a<\/p>\n
representation to be filed by his wife in that behalf. Petitioner<\/p>\n
states that accordingly she submitted Ext.P7 representation.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment,<\/p>\n
based on the representation filed, the claim of the petitioner<\/p>\n
for pension was reconsidered and was rejected by Ext.P8<\/p>\n
order passed by the third respondent. Based on Ext.P8, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                                 : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Government of India passed Ext.P9, rejecting the claim of the<\/p>\n
petitioner on the ground that there was no positive<\/p>\n
recommendation of the State Government which, according to<\/p>\n
the first respondent, is a mandatory requirement for<\/p>\n
consideration of the claim for grant of pension. It is<\/p>\n
challenging Exts.P8 and P9 and also for a direction to the<\/p>\n
respondents to extend to the petitioner the benefit of SSSP<\/p>\n
Scheme, this writ petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit<\/p>\n
contending mainly that in the absence of the mandatory<\/p>\n
positive recommendation from the second respondent, they<\/p>\n
are not in a position to grant the benefit of pension claimed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the second<\/p>\n
respondent, the second respondent has accepted that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is a beneficiary of the State Pension and that the<\/p>\n
deceased was awarded ‘Thamra Pathra’.             However, the<\/p>\n
second respondent has stated that as per jail records, the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s deceased husband had undergone imprisonment<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                              : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
only for about two months, during the period from 27-01-1118<\/p>\n
ME to 22-03-1118 ME. It is, therefore, contended that since<\/p>\n
the deceased did not undergo imprisonment for the minimum<\/p>\n
specified six months period, they were not in a position to<\/p>\n
recommend his case for pension under the Central Scheme. It<\/p>\n
is on this ground, the second respondent seeks to justify<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 order.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended<\/p>\n
that the petitioner’s deceased husband being a genuine<\/p>\n
freedom fighter, ought not have been denied the benefit of<\/p>\n
Central pension. According to the learned senior counsel,<\/p>\n
although the deceased was convicted and sentenced to<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of more than six months, he was<\/p>\n
released prematurely by extending the benefit of an amnesty<\/p>\n
scheme, which was not granted based on any apology<\/p>\n
tendered by him. It is stated in such circumstances, applying<\/p>\n
the principles laid down in the judgments in Pappu Kesavan<\/p>\n
Vs. Union of India [1996 (2) KLT 1035], Bhaurao Dagdu<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                               : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2005 (3)<\/p>\n
SC 3330] and Narayana Pillai Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (3)<\/p>\n
KLT 351], the petitioner’s claim ought to have been accepted.<\/p>\n
     5. I heard the learned Government Pleader and the<\/p>\n
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent<\/p>\n
also, who reiterated their plea as contained in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavits filed.\n<\/p>\n
     6. It is an admitted fact that the deceased husband of<\/p>\n
the petitioner was recognised as a freedom fighter. He was<\/p>\n
also granted pension under the State Scheme evidenced by<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 order. It is also an admitted fact that recognising him<\/p>\n
as a freedom fighter, the deceased was awarded ‘Thamra<\/p>\n
Pathra’. It is also undisputed fact that during the period from<\/p>\n
27-01-1118 ME to 22-03-1118 ME, the deceased had<\/p>\n
undergone imprisonment in connection with the freedom<\/p>\n
struggle. Question is, despite the aforesaid facts, whether the<\/p>\n
claim of the petitioner for pension under the Central Scheme<\/p>\n
should have been negatived by the respondents. As already<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                                 : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
seen, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the deceased<\/p>\n
was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for<\/p>\n
more than six months. Although it is a fact that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has not produced documents evidencing that the conviction<\/p>\n
was for the period as claimed or to substantiate her plea that<\/p>\n
the deceased was released from imprisonment on account of<\/p>\n
an Amnesty scheme then implemented, Ext.P4 certificate<\/p>\n
issued by the Superintendent of the Central Prison,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram dated 05-07-2000 shows that though a<\/p>\n
certificate was issued to the petitioner’s husband, certifying<\/p>\n
the imprisonment he had undergone, the Superintendent is<\/p>\n
presently not in a position to issue any certificate for the<\/p>\n
reason that the convict register for the relevant period has<\/p>\n
been received irrecoverably and, therefore, the genuineness<\/p>\n
of the documents cannot be verified. Therefore, it is a case<\/p>\n
where it is practically impossible for the petitioner to secure a<\/p>\n
fresh certificate from the jail authorities.<\/p>\n
       7.   It is also the specific case of the petitioner that a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                                 : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
person who had undergone along with the deceased and who<\/p>\n
was released along with him has already been granted<\/p>\n
Freedom Fighters’ Pension, pursuant to the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in O.P.No.7068\/1999 filed by the aforesaid person, viz.,<\/p>\n
Sri.R.Sankar Warrier. It is seen from the aforesaid judgment<\/p>\n
that the Union of India had filed W.A.No.1717\/2000 which was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P10<\/p>\n
judgment rendered on 26-09-2000. In that judgment, dealing<\/p>\n
with facts, which are identical in nature, this Court has held as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
             ” The Swatanthrata Sainik Samman Scheme<\/p>\n
             for pension is promulgated with the intention<\/p>\n
             of benefiting those who bonafidly participated<\/p>\n
             in the freedom struggle. It was not in the<\/p>\n
             expectation of those person that pension will<\/p>\n
             be paid to them as they took part in the<\/p>\n
             struggle. They took part in the freedom<\/p>\n
             struggle on their own volition. They were<\/p>\n
             imprisoned and they were behind the bars.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The scheme directs that persons should have<\/p>\n
             undergone imprisonment for 6 months. But as<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                                 : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
             per the scheme those who were released<\/p>\n
             prematurely will be also be entitled to<\/p>\n
             pension provided the release was not on the<\/p>\n
             basis of apology. The respondent has clearly<\/p>\n
             stated that he was not released on the basis of<\/p>\n
             apology. From Ext.P7 it is clear that the<\/p>\n
             records are not available. In the light of the<\/p>\n
             above facts, we uphold the judgment of the<\/p>\n
             learned single judge. Two months time is<\/p>\n
             granted from today to comply with the<\/p>\n
             direction to pay pension to the petitioner in<\/p>\n
             the OP.”\n<\/p>\n
      8.   Therefore,     if a   person    who     had    undergone<\/p>\n
imprisonment along with the petitioner’s husband and<\/p>\n
released along with him has been extended pension pursuant<\/p>\n
to the directions in Ext.P10 judgment, I see no reason why a<\/p>\n
different treatment should have adopted by the respondents in<\/p>\n
the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner alone.<\/p>\n
Further this Court also held non availability of the certificate<\/p>\n
shall not be a ground to deny the benefit.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                               : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
for the petitioner, in various judgments including Pappu<\/p>\n
Kesavan Vs. Union of India [1996 (2) KLT 1035], Bhaurao<\/p>\n
Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR<\/p>\n
2005 (3) SC 3330] and Narayana Pillai Vs. State of Kerala<\/p>\n
[2009 (3) KLT 351], this Court and Apex Court has repeatedly<\/p>\n
highlighted the approach to be adopted in a case of this<\/p>\n
nature. It has been held that the freedom fighters should be<\/p>\n
treated with reverence and that genuine claims should be<\/p>\n
liberally considered. In my view, these principles are fully<\/p>\n
applicable in the case of the claim made by the petitioner and<\/p>\n
therefore, in the light of the material available, I am satisfied<\/p>\n
that the claim made by the petitioner deserves acceptance.<\/p>\n
      10. Reference was also invited to the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in OP.No.10501\/1997 where a learned Judge of this<\/p>\n
Court had upheld a claim for pension relying mainly on the<\/p>\n
`Thamra Pathra’ awarded to the claimant therein. Here also,<\/p>\n
the deceased husband of the petitioner has been awarded<\/p>\n
`Thamra Pathra’.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.165\/05
\n                                : 10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
      11. Thus, on an over all consideration of the matter, I<\/p>\n
feel that the reasoning of the second respondent in Ext.P8<\/p>\n
order, rejecting the application on the ground that the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s deceased husband had undergone imprisonment<\/p>\n
only for two months and that his release was not on an<\/p>\n
apology is too technical to be upheld by this Court. I,<\/p>\n
therefore, quash Ext.P8 and consequently, Ext.P9 issued by<\/p>\n
the first respondent is also set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      12. There will be a declaration that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
deceased husband is entitled to get pension under the SSSP<\/p>\n
Scheme of the first respondent. It is directed that the first<\/p>\n
respondent shall disburse the benefits due under the scheme<\/p>\n
to the petitioner within two months of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n
                           \/\/ True Copy \/\/<\/p>\n
                                   P.A. To Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 165 of 2005(T) 1. SUHARAKUNJU, W\/O.LATE MOHAMMED … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) For Respondent […]<\/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-191084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-27T13:38:29+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T13:38:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1685,\"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\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-27T13:38:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - 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\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-27T13:38:29+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T13:38:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010"},"wordCount":1685,"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\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010","name":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-27T13:38:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suharakunju-vs-union-of-india-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suharakunju vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/191084","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=191084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}