{"id":198399,"date":"1965-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965"},"modified":"2018-03-14T09:39:10","modified_gmt":"2018-03-14T04:09:10","slug":"jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","title":{"rendered":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1140, \t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 134<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nJAGANNATH MISRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ORISSA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/12\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1140\t\t  1966 SCR  (3) 134\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1967 SC 483\t (9)\n R\t    1972 SC1256\t (26)\n RF\t    1972 SC1749\t (9)\n R\t    1975 SC 919\t (9,15)\n\n\nACT:\nDefence\t of India Act and rules, 1962, Rule  30(1)(b)--Order\nunder-Grounds of detention-Application of mind by  detaining\nauthority-Necessity of-.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t was detained by an order  issued  under  r.\n30(1)(b)  of the DefEnce of India Rules.  He challenged\t the\ndetention  order  in  a\t petition  under  Art.\t32  of\t the\nConstitution mainly on the ground that the order  enumerated\nsix out of eight possible grounds of detention which  showed\nthat the detaining authority had not really applied its mind\nto  the\t matter.  The affidavit filed by the  Home  Minister\nstated\tthat  the detention order was made on  his  personal\nsatisfaction that it was necessary to detain the  petitioner\nunder the Rules \"with a view to prevent him from acting in a\nmanner prejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of\npublic order etc.\"\nHELD : (i) The order of detention under r. 30(1) (b) of\t the\nRules  deprives\t a citizen of this country of  his  personal\nliberty\t and  in  view\tof the suspension  of  some  of\t the\nfundamental  rights  by\t the President\ton  account  of\t the\nemergency,  a  citizen\thas  very  limited  opportunity\t  of\nchallenging an order of detention properly passed under\t the\nRules. Section44 of the Defence of India Act says that there\nshould\t be  as\t little\t interference  with   the   ordinary\navocations  of life and the enjoyment of property as may  be\nconsonant  with\t the  ensuring\tof  the\t public\t safety\t and\ninterest and the Defence of India and Civil Defence.  If  in\n'Any  case it appears that the detaining authority  did\t not\napply its mind properly before making the order of detention\nthe order in question would not be an order under the  Rules\nand  the person detained would be entitled to release.\t[137\nF-138 C]\n(ii) Of the eight grounds of detention in s. 3(2)(15) of the\nDefence of India Act one refers to foreigners i.,e. of being\nof  hostile origin.  An Indian Citizen can thus be  detained\non  seven  possible grounds and the detention order  in\t the\npresent\t case  mentioned  six  of  them.   However  in\t the\naffidavit  filed by the Minister only two of  these  grounds\nnamely\tsafety of India and the maintenance of public  order\nwere  mentioned.   In  these circumstances  there  could  be\nlittle doubt that the authority concerned did not apply\t its\nmind properly before the order in question was passed in the\npresent\t case.\t Such  a  discrepancy  between\tthe  grounds\nmentioned  in  the  order  and the  grounds  stated  in\t the\naffidavit of the authority concerned can only show an amount\nof casualness in passing the order of detention against\t the\nprovisions of s. 44 of the Act. [138 D-H]\nCasualness was also apparent from the conjunctive 'or' used\nin  the order showing that it was more or less a copy of  s.\n3(2) (15).  The use of the word 'etc.' in the affidavit\t was\nanother example of casualness.\tThis casualness showed\tthat\nthe  mind of the authority concerned was really not  applied\nto  the question of detention of the petitioner.  The  order\nof\n135\ndetention  passed without application of mind was  no  order\nunder the Rules and the petitioners was entitled to release.\n[139 C]\n(iii)\t  The  fact  that  the order of\t detention  was\t not\nwritten by the Minister himself but by his subordinates\t was\nirrelevant.  It is the duty of the Minister to see that\t the\norder  issued  is in accordance with  his  satisfaction\t and\ncarries out his directions. [139 G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 97 of 1965.<br \/>\nPetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for\t the<br \/>\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.   K. Garg for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   S. Bindra and R. N. Sachthey for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nWanchoo, J. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus  under<br \/>\nArt.  32 of the Constitution was heard by us on December  7,<br \/>\n1965.\tWe then directed the release of the  petitioner\t and<br \/>\nindicated that reasons will follow later.  We proceed to  do<br \/>\nso now.\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner was detained by an order issued under r.\t 30-<br \/>\n(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter  referred<br \/>\nto as the Rules) by the Government of Orissa on December 29,<br \/>\n1964.\tHe  raised  a  number  of  grounds  challenging\t his<br \/>\ndetention.   It is unnecessary to refer to all\tthe  grounds<br \/>\nraised\tby the petitioner.  It is enough to say that one  of<br \/>\nthe  grounds raised by him was, that the order of  detention<br \/>\npassed\tby  the\t State Government was  not  based  upon\t the<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of  the Government.  The order  was  in  these<br \/>\nterms :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Order  No.  8583\/C,  Bhubaneswar,  the\t29th<br \/>\n\t      December, 1964.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;WHEREAS\tthe  State Government  is  satisfied<br \/>\n\t      that with a view to preventing Shri  Jagannath<br \/>\n\t      Misra,   son   of\t  Biswanath   Misra,   vill.<br \/>\n\t      Bhandarisahi,  P.\t S.  Parlakemedi,   District<br \/>\n\t      Ganjam, from acting in any manner\t prejudicial<br \/>\n\t      to the defence of India and civil defence, the<br \/>\n\t      public  safety,  the  maintenance\t of   public<br \/>\n\t      order, India&#8217;s relations with foreign  powers,<br \/>\n\t      the maintenance of peaceful conditions in\t any<br \/>\n\t      part  of\tIndia or the  efficient\t conduct  of<br \/>\n\t      military operations, it is necessary so to do,<br \/>\n\t      the  Governor  of Orissa in  exercise  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      powers  conferred\t by rule 30(1)\t(b)  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Defence  of India Rules, 1962, is\t pleased  to<br \/>\n\t      direct that the said<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      136<\/span><br \/>\n\t      Shri  Jagannath Misra shall be detained  until<br \/>\n\t      further orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      By  order\t of the Governor, Sd.  Secretary  to<br \/>\n\t      Government.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  will be noticed that the order mentions six\t grounds  on<br \/>\nthe  basis  of\twhich  the  petitioner\twas  ordered  to  be<br \/>\ndetained,  namely, acting in any manner prejudicial to\t(i)<br \/>\nthe  defence  of India and civil defence, (ii)\tthe  public<br \/>\nsafety, (iii) the maintenance of public order, (iv)  India&#8217;s<br \/>\nrelations  with\t foreign  powers,  (v)\tthe  maintenance  of<br \/>\npeaceful  conditions  in  any part of India,  and  (vi)\t the<br \/>\nefficient conduct of military operations.  As the petitioner<br \/>\nhad raised the contention that the order had not been passed<br \/>\non  the satisfaction of the State Government we ordered\t the<br \/>\nMinister concerned  to file an affidavit in  this  behalf.<br \/>\nConsequently, the Home Minister of the Government of  Orissa<br \/>\nwho deals with matters of detention, has filed an affidavit<br \/>\nto  show  that the order in question was  passed  after\t the<br \/>\nState Government was satisfied of the necessity thereof.<br \/>\nIt  is\tstated\tin this affidavit that\tthe  petitioner\t was<br \/>\nordered to be detained on December 29, 1964, by the order in<br \/>\nquestion  and  was actually detained on December  30,  1964.<br \/>\nThe affidavit then goes on to say that after the outbreak of<br \/>\nhostilities  between China and India and the declaration  of<br \/>\nemergency  by  the President a close watch was\tset  on\t the<br \/>\nmovements and activities of persons who either\tindividually<br \/>\nor  as a part of an Organisation were acting or were  likely<br \/>\nto  act in a manner prejudicial to the safety of  India\t and<br \/>\nmaintenance   of  public  order,  and  in  this\t  connection<br \/>\nparticular  attention  was  paid to the\t activities  of\t the<br \/>\nmembers of that section of the Communist Party which came to<br \/>\nbe  known  as  the pro-Peking faction  of  the\tParty.\t The<br \/>\npetitioner  was a member of the pro-Peking faction  and\t was<br \/>\nunder  close and constant watch.  From the reports  received<br \/>\nregarding the activities of the petitioner the Home Minister<br \/>\nstated\tin  the affidavit that he was  personally  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  it  was necessary to detain the petitioner  under\t the<br \/>\nRules  &#8220;with a view to prevent him from acting in  a  manner<br \/>\nprejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of public<br \/>\norder, etc.&#8221; The affidavit goes on to say that the  decision<br \/>\nto   detain  the  petitioner  was  made\t on   the   personal<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of the Minister and that the satisfaction\t was<br \/>\nbased  on  several reports placed before the  Minister\twith<br \/>\nrespect to the activities of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">137<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  principal\tcontention on behalf of\t the  petitioner  in<br \/>\nrelation  to and against the affidavit of the Home  Minister<br \/>\nis that it is clear from a perusal of the affidavit that the<br \/>\nMinister  did  not  apply  his mind in\tthe  matter  of\t the<br \/>\ndetention of the petitioner.  It is urged that the order  in<br \/>\nquestion  contains  six\t grounds of  detention.\t  These\t six<br \/>\ngrounds\t practically cover all the grounds. specified in  s.<br \/>\n3(2) (15) of the Defence of India Act (hereinafter  referred<br \/>\nto  as the Act) except two, namely-(i) the security  of\t the<br \/>\nState  and  (ii)  of  being of\ta  hostile  origin.   It  is<br \/>\ntherefore  urged  that\tthe  order  was\t made  copying\t out<br \/>\npractically  all the grounds specified in s. 3 (2)  (15)  of<br \/>\nthe Act without the application of the mind of the  Minister<br \/>\nwhether those grounds were made out in this case.   Reliance<br \/>\nin  this connection is placed on the affidavit of  the\tHome<br \/>\nMinister  where\t he  has  stated  that\the  was\t  personally<br \/>\nsatisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner  in<br \/>\norder to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial  to<br \/>\nthe  safety of India and maintenance of public\torder,\tetc.<br \/>\nIt is: urged that the affidavit shows that the Minister\t did<br \/>\nnot  really apply his mind to the question of the  detention<br \/>\nof the petitioner and the grounds for doing so and acted  in<br \/>\na   casual  manner  in\tapproving  the\tdetention   of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner.  It is urged that while the grounds specified in<br \/>\nthe  order are six in number, the Minister when speaking  of<br \/>\nhis  satisfaction has mentioned only two, namely, safety  of<br \/>\nIndia  (which  may be assumed to be the same as\t the  public<br \/>\nsafety) and maintenance of public sector.<br \/>\nThere  is in our opinion force in this contention on  behalf<br \/>\nof  the petitioner.  The order of detention under r. 30\t (1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  of the Rules deprives a citizen of this country of\t his<br \/>\npersonal  liberty and in view of the suspension of  some  of<br \/>\nthe  fundamental rights by the President on account  of\t the<br \/>\nemergency,  a  citizen\thas  very  limited  opportunity\t  of<br \/>\nchallenging an order of detention properly passed under\t the<br \/>\nRules.\t It seems to us therefore necessary where  detention<br \/>\nis  made  under\t the  Rules  that  the\tauthority   ordering<br \/>\ndetention  should  act with a full sense  of  responsibility<br \/>\nkeeping in mind on the one hand the interests of the country<br \/>\nin  the\t present  emergency  and  on  the  other  hand\t the<br \/>\nimportance  of\tthe liberty of the citizen in  a  democratic<br \/>\nsociety.  That this is so is also emphasised by s. 44 of the<br \/>\nAct which lays down that &#8220;any authority or person acting  in<br \/>\npursuance  of  this Act shall interfere\t with  the  ordinary<br \/>\navocations  of life and the enjoyment of property as  little<br \/>\nas may be consonant with the purpose of ensuring the  public<br \/>\nsafety\tand  interest  and the defence of  India  and  civil<br \/>\ndefence.&#8221;  In view of this specific provision in the Act  it<br \/>\nis incumbent upon.\n<\/p>\n<p>up. CI\/66-10<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">138<\/span><br \/>\nthe authority which is passing on order under r. 30(1)(b) of<br \/>\nthe  Rules  taking  away the liberty of a  citizen  of\tthis<br \/>\ncountry that it should act with due care and caution and see<br \/>\nthat  the  person detained is so detained on  grounds  which<br \/>\njustify\t the  detention\t in the\t interest  of  the  country.<br \/>\nFurther\t the proceedings in the matter of detention and\t the<br \/>\norder  of detention should show that it had acted  with\t all<br \/>\ndue  care and caution and with the sense  of  responsibility<br \/>\nnecessary when a citizen is deprived of his liberty  without<br \/>\ntrial.\tWe have therefore to see whether in the present case<br \/>\nthe authority concerned has acted in this manner or not.  If<br \/>\nit has not so acted and if it appears that it did not  apply<br \/>\nits  mind properly before making the order of detention\t the<br \/>\norder in question would not be an order under the Rules\t and<br \/>\nthe person detained would be entitled to release.<br \/>\nNow we have pointed out that the order of detention in\tthis<br \/>\ncase refers to six out of eight possible grounds on which  a<br \/>\nperson can be detained under s. 3 (2) (15).  Of these  eight<br \/>\ngrounds\t under s. 3 (2) (15) one refers to foreigners  i.e.,<br \/>\nof  being of hostile origin.  Therefore in the present\tcase<br \/>\nthe order really mentions six out of seven possible  grounds<br \/>\nwhich  can  apply to an Indian whose  detention\t is  ordered<br \/>\nunder s. 3 (2) (15).  We do not say that it is not  possible<br \/>\nto  detain  a citizen on six out of seven  possible  grounds<br \/>\nunder  s.  3 (2) (15); but if that is done it  is  necessary<br \/>\nthat  the authority detaining a citizen should be  satisfied<br \/>\nabout  each  one  of  the  grounds  that  the  detention  is<br \/>\nnecessary thereon.  But if it appears that though the  order<br \/>\nof  detention  mentions\t a  large  number  of  grounds\t the<br \/>\nauthority  concerned  did not apply its mind  to  all  those<br \/>\ngrounds\t before passing the order, there can in our  opinion<br \/>\nbe no doubt in such a case that the order was passed without<br \/>\napplying  the  mind of the authority concerned to  the\treal<br \/>\nnecessity  of  detention.  In the present case\tas  we\thave<br \/>\nalready\t pointed  out  six grounds  out\t of  possible  seven<br \/>\ngrounds\t on  which  a  citizen can  be\tdetained  have\tbeen<br \/>\nmentioned in tie order; but in the affidavit of the Minister<br \/>\nwe find mention of only two of those grounds, namely, safety<br \/>\nof  India  (which may be assumed to be the  same  as  public<br \/>\nsafety)\t and  the  maintenance\tof  public  order.   In\t dim<br \/>\ncircumstances  there can be little doubt that the  authority<br \/>\nconcerned  did not apply its mind properly before the  order<br \/>\nin  question  was passed in the present case.  Such  a\tdis-<br \/>\ncrepancy between the grounds mentioned in the order and\t the<br \/>\ngrounds\t stated in the affidavit of the authority  concerned<br \/>\ncan  only show an amount of casualness in passing the  order<br \/>\nof  detention  against the provisions of s. 44 of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nThis casualness<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">139<\/span><br \/>\nalso  shows  that the mind of the  authority  concerned\t was<br \/>\nreally\tnot  applied  to the question of  detention  of\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  in the present case. In this view of the  matter<br \/>\nwe are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to release<br \/>\nas the order by which he was detained is no order under\t the<br \/>\nRules for it was passed without the application of the\tmind<br \/>\nof the authority concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p> There\tis  another aspect of the order which leads  to\t the<br \/>\nsame  conclusion  and unmistakably shows casualness  in\t the<br \/>\nmaking\tof  the order.\tWhere a number of  grounds  are\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of  a detention order, we would\texpect\tthe  various<br \/>\ngrounds to be joined by the conjunctive &#8220;and&#8221; and the use of<br \/>\nthe disjunctive &#8220;or&#8221; in such a case makes no sense.  In\t the<br \/>\npresent order however we find that the disjunctive &#8220;or&#8221;\t has<br \/>\nbeen used, showing that the order is more or less a copy  of<br \/>\nS.  3  (2) (15) without any application of the mind  of\t the<br \/>\nauthority  concerned  to  the grounds  which  apply  in\t the<br \/>\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t counsel for the State however relies on the word  &#8221;<br \/>\netc.&#8221; appearing in the affidavit.  His contention is that as<br \/>\nthe  order  of detention had already been  mentioned  in  an<br \/>\nearlier part of the affidavit of the Home Minister, the word<br \/>\n&#8220;etc.&#8221;\tused in the later part of the affidavit\t means\tthat<br \/>\nthough\tthe  affidavit\twas  only  mentioning  two  grounds,<br \/>\nnamely,\t the safety of India and the maintenance  of  public<br \/>\norder,\tit really referred to all the grounds  mentioned  in<br \/>\nthe  order.   We  are  not  prepared  to  accept  this.\t  If<br \/>\nanything,  the use of the words &#8220;etc.&#8221; in the  affidavit  is<br \/>\nanother example of casualness.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  was also urged on behalf of the State that the order  in<br \/>\nquestion  was not actually written out by the  Minister\t and<br \/>\nthat after the satisfaction of the Minister such orders\t are<br \/>\nprepared  by  his subordinates in the Secretariat  and\tthat<br \/>\ntherefore   the\t Minister  was\tnot  responsible   for\t the<br \/>\ndiscrepancy between the order and the affidavit.  We are not<br \/>\nprepared  to accept this explanation, for it is the duty  of<br \/>\nthe  Minister to see that the order is issued in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  his  satisfaction\t and  carries  out  his\t directions.<br \/>\nThough\tthe Minister may not write out the order himself  he<br \/>\nis as much responsible for it as if he had done so  himself,<br \/>\nfor  no\t order\tof  detention  can  be\tpassed\twithout\t the<br \/>\nsatisfaction  of the authority empowered under the  Act\t and<br \/>\nthe Rules.  The authority cannot take refuge in saying\tthat<br \/>\nit  was\t really\t satisfied about, say, one  ground  but\t the<br \/>\nperson\twho later on wrote out the order of detention  added<br \/>\nmany more grounds which the authority never had in mind.  It<br \/>\nis the duty of the authority to see that the order<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">140<\/span><br \/>\nof  detention is in accordance with what the  authority\t was<br \/>\nsatisfied about.    If\tit  is\tnot  so,  the  inference  of<br \/>\ncasualness is strengthened and the Court would be  justified<br \/>\nin coming to the conclusion that the\torder\twas   passed<br \/>\nwithout\t the  application  of  the  mind  of  the  authority<br \/>\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>Petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">141<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1140, 1966 SCR (3) 134 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: JAGANNATH MISRA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/1965 BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - 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\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-14T04:09:10+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-14T04:09:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2234,\"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\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\",\"name\":\"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-14T04:09:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - 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\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-14T04:09:10+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965","datePublished":"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-14T04:09:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965"},"wordCount":2234,"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\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965","name":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-14T04:09:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannath-misra-vs-state-of-orissa-on-17-december-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagannath Misra vs State Of Orissa on 17 December, 1965"}]},{"@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\/198399","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=198399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198399\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}