{"id":195642,"date":"2009-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-25T18:17:33","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T12:47:33","slug":"habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.631 of 2008\n\nHabiba                         ..    Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n  rep. by its Secretary to\n   Government Public (Law and\n  Order - F) Department,\n  Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n2.The District Collector &amp;\n   District Magistrate,\n  Dindigul (Dt),\n  Dindigul.\n\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Dindigul Town South Police Station,\n  Dindigul District.           ..   Respondents\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned\ndetention order passed in NSA Detention Order No.08\/2008 dated 26.7.2008 on the\nfile of the 2nd respondent herein and  quash the same and direct the respondents\nto produce the body of the petitioner's son namely J.Abudalip, now confined in\nCentral Prison, Madurai, as NSA detenu 4084, before this Court and set him at\nliberty.\n\n!For petitioner ... Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah\n^For respondents... Mr.Daniel Manoharan                       \t\n\t\t    Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Writ Petition challenges the order of the second respondent dated<br \/>\n26.7.2008 whereby the order of detention was made against the detenu, son of the<br \/>\npetitioner, under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act<br \/>\n65 of 1980).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in seven adverse<br \/>\ncases viz., Crime No.275\/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 387, 506(ii) IPC<br \/>\nregistered in Dindigul Town West Police Station; Crime No.244\/2008 under<br \/>\nSections 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC registered in Dindigul Town West Police<br \/>\nStation; Crime No.239 of 2008 under sections 143, 341, 336 IPC and 3(1) TNPPDL<br \/>\nAct 1984 registered in Dindigul Town North Police Station; Crime No.360\/2008<br \/>\nunder Sections 341, 323, 506(i) IPC; Crime No.347\/2008 under Sections 147, 148,<br \/>\n341, 324, 307, 153(A), 153(B) IPC r\/w 3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1984 registered in<br \/>\nDindigul Town South Police Station; Crime No.348\/2008 under Sections 147, 148,<br \/>\n341, 153(A), 153(B) IPC r\/w 3(1) TNPPDL Act 1984 registered in Dindigul Town<br \/>\nSouth Police Station; and Crime No.382\/2008 under Sections 147, 148, 341 IPC r\/w<br \/>\n3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1984 registered in Dindigul Town West Police Station. Apart<br \/>\nfrom the seven adverse cases, he was also involved in one ground case, which was<br \/>\nregistered by the Dindigul Town South Police Station in Crime No.346\/2008 under<br \/>\nSections 147, 148, 341, 307, 153(A), 153(B) IPC r\/w 3(1) TNPPDL Act 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The detaining authority, after looking into all the materials available<br \/>\nrecorded his subjective satisfaction that the detenu by his activities had<br \/>\ncreated communal tension between the Hindus and the Muslims and affected the<br \/>\npublic order and hence, he should be detained under the provisions of the<br \/>\nNational Security Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The Court looked into the materials available, in particular, the order<br \/>\nunder challenge and also the Counter Affidavit filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Assailing the order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) The detenu was arrested in the ground case in Crime No.346\/2008 and<br \/>\nproduced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul on 19.6.2008 and was<br \/>\nremanded till 3.7.2008 and then his remand was extended upto 17.7.2008 and<br \/>\nfinally, his remand was extended upto 31.7.2008.  The order of remand extension<br \/>\nif looked into, it would indicate that it was done by production of the detenu<br \/>\nbefore the Court whereas the order of detention would read as if it was done by<br \/>\nvideo conferencing and thus, the order of detention is found contrary to the<br \/>\nactual materials available.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Secondly, the detenu filed a bail petition before the Court of<br \/>\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.1078\/2008 and the same was<br \/>\nordered.   While granting bail, the Principal Sessions Judge imposed a condition<br \/>\nthat the accused\/detenu should deposit a sum of Rs.1,000\/- and also furnish two<br \/>\nsureties each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000\/-.  Contrarily, it is<br \/>\nfound in the detention order that he was directed to furnish two sureties each<br \/>\nexecuting a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000\/- but insofar as cash deposit of<br \/>\nRs.1,000\/-, it is not found so.  Thus, it is also pointing to the non-<br \/>\napplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Added further the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect<br \/>\nof one adverse case and one ground case, bail was granted in his favour.  He was<br \/>\nactually under custody in respect of three adverse cases, which were pending<br \/>\nagainst the detenu.  The detaining authority has stated that there was a real<br \/>\npossibility of the detenu coming out on bail when the detenu was in custody in<br \/>\nrespect of three adverse cases and when there was no bail application pending<br \/>\nbefore any Court of criminal law.  The detaining authority without any material<br \/>\nor basis has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out<br \/>\non bail and thus, it has affected the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) In the first adverse case i.e. in Crime No.275\/2006 registered in<br \/>\nDindigul Town West Police Station, charge sheet was laid but no particulars were<br \/>\nfurnished to the detenu as to list of witnesses<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) On all the above grounds, the order of detention has got to be set<br \/>\naside, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for<br \/>\nthe State on the above contentions, who made sincere attempt to sustain the<br \/>\norder of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. After looking into the materials, the Court is inclined to set aside<br \/>\nthe order of detention after making a comment that it was a case of carrying<br \/>\nnon-application of mind.  It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved<br \/>\nin seven adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No.346\/2008 registered in<br \/>\nDindigul Town South Police Station.  It could also be seen that remand was<br \/>\nextended from 3.7.2008 till 31.7.2008 in that case.  The order of remand<br \/>\nextension would clearly indicate that he was produced before the Court.<br \/>\nContrarily, it is found in the order of detention as if the extension of remand<br \/>\nwas extended by video conferencing.  Now, it is highly doubtful whether the<br \/>\ndetenu was actually produced before the Court as found in the remand extension<br \/>\nor whether remand was extended by video conferencing.  Thus, it only indicates<br \/>\nthe non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.  Even at<br \/>\nthis stage, the State is unable to explain about this.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Added circumstances is that when the bail was granted by the Court of<br \/>\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.1078\/2008, the detenu was<br \/>\ndirected to furnish cash deposit of Rs.1,000\/- and also furnish two sureties<br \/>\neach executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000\/-.  Contrarily, the order of<br \/>\ndetention indicates that the bail was granted on condition of furnishing two<br \/>\nsureties each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000\/- but it does not whisper<br \/>\nabout the condition directing him a cash deposit of Rs.1,000\/-.  Thus, it would<br \/>\nindicate that the bail order was not properly looked into by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  Added circumstances is while the detenu was under custody in respect<br \/>\nof three adverse cases, while he was having knowledge of bail in one  adverse<br \/>\ncase and in the ground case, no material was available in the hands of the<br \/>\ndetaining authority to indicate that there was a real possibility of the detenu<br \/>\ncoming out on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  All the above grounds of attack, in the  considered opinion of the<br \/>\nCourt, would suffice to set aside the order of detention.  Accordingly, it is<br \/>\nmade undone by upsetting the order of detention.  The detenu is directed to be<br \/>\nset at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case<br \/>\nin accordance with law.  Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.Secretary to<br \/>\n   Government Public (Law and<br \/>\n  Order &#8211; F) Department,<br \/>\n  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Secretariat, Chennai &#8211; 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector &amp;<br \/>\n   District Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Dindigul (Dt),<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Dindigul Town South Police Station,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL H.C.P.(MD) No.631 of 2008 Habiba .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T12:47:33+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T12:47:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1164,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T12:47:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T12:47:33+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T12:47:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009"},"wordCount":1164,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009","name":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T12:47:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/habiba-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Habiba vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/195642","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=195642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}