{"id":201494,"date":"2003-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"modified":"2017-11-25T07:49:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T02:19:19","slug":"kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  JUDICATURE  AT  MADRAS\n\nDated: 26\/03\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ\n\nH.C.P. No.2154 OF 2002\n\nKumari                                 .....                        Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  State of Tamil Nadu\n    represented by the\n    Secretary to Government\n    Prohibition and Excise Department\n    Chennai  9\n\n2.  District Collector and\n    District Magistrate\n    Kancheepuram District\n    Kancheepuram                .....                    Respondents\n\nPetition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying\nfor a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated in the petition\n\nFor Petitioner ::  Mr.  Swamidoss Manoharan\n\nFor Respondents ::  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan\n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by V.S.  SIRPURKAR, J.)<br \/>\n                The  writ  petition  is  filed  by one Kumari, challenging the<br \/>\norder dated 16-8-2002 passed by District Collector  and  District  Magistrate,<br \/>\nKancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, branding one Varadarajan as  goonda and<br \/>\ndirecting  his detention under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous<br \/>\nActivities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,  Immoral<br \/>\nTraffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 198 2 (in short Act 14 of 1982).\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  One adverse case is shown against  the  detenu  while  the<br \/>\nground  case  is  based on an incident dated 27-5-2002, which pertained to the<br \/>\nmurder of one Kutty, husband of Tmt.  Mangalam Kutty.  The said Mangalam Kutty<br \/>\nwas the President of the Melamaiyur village panchayat at  the  relevant  time.<br \/>\nIn  the  reasons  it  is  suggested  that  detenu belonged to the group of one<br \/>\nKanitha Sampath, sitting  Member  of  Legislative  Assembly  from  Thirupporur<br \/>\nAssembly constituency and the wife of the deceased Kutty had political rivalry<br \/>\nwith  Kanitha  Sampath  and  this has resulted into the murder of Kutty at the<br \/>\nhands of the henchmen of the said Kanitha Sampath.  As  many  as  six  persons<br \/>\nhave  been  shown  to  be  arrested  on  account  of  the allegation that they<br \/>\nassaulted Kutty with aruval and knives and caused him  injuries  resulting  in<br \/>\nhis death  on  the  spot.  The detaining authority has also relied on the fact<br \/>\nthat Mangalam Kutty had lodged a number of complaints to the concerned  police<br \/>\nstation  because  of the threatening calls and threatening letters directed at<br \/>\nher by the henchmen of her political rival.   It  is  also  pointed  out  that<br \/>\nMangalam  Kutty  was  elected  as  the President of the said village panchayat<br \/>\nunion, defeating the sitting M.L.A., Kanitha Sampath.  The detaining authority<br \/>\nhad come to the conclusion that this murder of  the  husband  of  the  village<br \/>\npanchayat has resulted in the disturbance to the maintenance of public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Learned   counsel  for  the  petitioner,  Mr.    Swamidoss<br \/>\nManoharan firstly pointed out that pages 51, 59, 81, 83, 191, 225,  227,  231,<br \/>\n24 7, 255, 257, 259, 283, 287 and 29 were illegible and, therefore, the detenu<br \/>\nfound it  difficult  to read the same.  He, therefore, had sought legible copy<br \/>\nof these pages.  He further points out that 177, 179, 18 1 , 183, 35,  41,  43<br \/>\nand  45  were  entirely  in  English  and  since the detenu did not understand<br \/>\nEnglish, he had sought the Tamil translation of these pages.  Learned  counsel<br \/>\nsuggested  that  though  these pages have been given, the Tamil translation of<br \/>\npages 307 to 309 were incomplete.  He, therefore, suggests that  this  amounts<br \/>\nto  the  denial  of  opportunity to make a proper and effective representation<br \/>\nagainst his detention.\n<\/p>\n<pre>                4.  We  have  seen  those  pages.    They  pertained  to   the\npost-mortem report,  which  is  in  English.    There  is  no  doubt  that the\n<\/pre>\n<p>translation of  this  post-mortem  report,  which  graphically  describes  the<br \/>\ninjuries on  the person of the deceased Kutty has not been supplied.  However,<br \/>\nthe matters  will  not  stand  concluded  thereby.    It  is  trite  law   now<br \/>\ncrystallised by  the  decision  of the Supreme Court in PAUNAMMAL v.  STATE OF<br \/>\nTAMIL NADU (1999 SCC Crl.  231) that it is only the denial on the part of  the<br \/>\nState  to supply the copies of or translation of the  relied upon documents,<br \/>\nit would clinch the issue in favour  of  the  detenu.    The  Apex  Court  has<br \/>\nclarified  therein  that  if  the  detenu  asks  for  only  the  referred to<br \/>\ndocuments, the non-supply thereof would not result in vitiating the detention.<br \/>\nWe have seen  the  grounds  very  closely  but,  we  do  not  find  that  this<br \/>\npost-mortem  report  is  in any manner relied upon by the detaining authority.<br \/>\nAt the most it is a  referred document.  In that view, the contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that a prejudice was caused to  the  detenu<br \/>\non  account of non-supply can also not be accepted because the learned counsel<br \/>\nhas not been able to  show  us  any  prejudice  caused  on  account  of  the<br \/>\nnonsupply.   Keeping  in  mind,  the principles laid down by the Apex Court in<br \/>\nPaunammal case, cited supra, it will have  to  be  held  that  the  contention<br \/>\nraised does not deserve acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Learned  counsel  then  argued  that there was nothing to<br \/>\nsuggest that this singular incident of murder had resulted in disturbance of<br \/>\npublic order.  Learned counsel contended that it could at the most be held  to<br \/>\nbe  prejudicial  to the maintenance of law and order situation in the village.<br \/>\nThe argument was that this was a small hamlet wherein such  murder  by  itself<br \/>\ncannot cause  the  repulse  so  as  to  disturb  the  public  order.   We were<br \/>\nextensively taken through the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/575391\/\">PIYUSH<br \/>\nKANTIVAL MEHTA v.  COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD  CITY  AND  ANOTHER  (AIR<\/a><br \/>\n1989  SC 491) and more particularly the observations made in paragraphs 12, 16<br \/>\nand 17 thereof.  There can be no dispute about the law laid down by  the  Apex<br \/>\nCourt.  However, it cannot be said that the incident of a murder of husband of<br \/>\nthe  President  of  the  Village  Panchayat was of such a potency so as not to<br \/>\ndisturb the public order in the otherwise calm and quiet hamlet.    We  cannot<br \/>\nforget  that in the grounds the pre-existing enmity between Mangalam Kutty and<br \/>\nKanitha Sampath is referred to and relied upon.  The murder was as a result of<br \/>\npolitical rivalry between Mangalam Kutty and Kanitha Sampath.   The  detaining<br \/>\nauthority  has  also used the earlier complaints made by Mangalam Kutty asking<br \/>\nfor the protection.  He  has  also  referred  to  the  threatening  calls  and<br \/>\nthreatening  letters  handed  out  by  the  group of the said Kanitha Sampath.<br \/>\nUnder such circumstances, it cannot be said that  a  gruesome  murder  of  the<br \/>\nhusband  of  President  of the village panchayat will not cause ripples in the<br \/>\npublic order of  that  hamlet.    After  all,  if  Melamaiyur  had  a  village<br \/>\npanchayat, it  cannot  be  strictly  said to be a sleepy hamlet.  We have seen<br \/>\neven the sketch drawn by the Investigating Officer where this gruesome  murder<br \/>\ntook place  though  at  night  at  10o clock.  It is in the vicinity of a few<br \/>\nhouses.  If the incident has  taken  place  on  the  backdrop  of  the  fierce<br \/>\npolitical  rivalry  and  of such a person like husband of the President of the<br \/>\nvillage panchayat, it cannot be said that the public order of  that  area  was<br \/>\nnot likely to be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Learned counsel then pointed out that this was a singular<br \/>\nincident and, therefore, it could not be said that it would disturb the public<br \/>\norder.  In the recent decision in DARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v.  STATE OF TAMIL  NADU<br \/>\n(J.T.   2003  (1) SC 176), the Apex Court went into this question and observed<br \/>\nthat a solitary assault on one individual could not be  said  to  disturb  the<br \/>\npublic peace  or  place  the  public  order  in jeopardy.  In paragraph 6, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court took note of the allegations made against  the  detenu  in  that<br \/>\ncase, which  was  of  his robing a person called Kumar in a public place.  It,<br \/>\ntherefore, came to the conclusion and recorded a finding  that  there  was  no<br \/>\nmaterial on record to show that the reach and the potentiality of the solitary<br \/>\nincident  of  robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life<br \/>\nof the community in the locality or disturb general peace and  tranquility  or<br \/>\ncreate a  sense  of  alarm  and insecurity in the locality.  The Supreme Court<br \/>\nlater  on  went  on  to  quash  the  detention  on  the  ground  that  in  the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  that  case, it could not be said that the act of the detenu<br \/>\nwas sufficient to cause a disturbance to  the  public  order.    However,  the<br \/>\nobservations  quoted  above  provide  a  clue  for  deciding  as  to whether a<br \/>\nparticular act could be held to be sufficient to  disturb  the  public  order.<br \/>\nThough  in  the aforesaid decision, there were no such facts available, in our<br \/>\nopinion, the material is  available  in  the  present  case.    It  cannot  be<br \/>\nforgotten  that there was a backdrop of a long standing rivalry in between two<br \/>\ngroups  one headed by the wife of the deceased and  another  by  the  sitting<br \/>\nMember of  the  Legislative  Assembly.    The  wife  of  the deceased has been<br \/>\nconstantly complaining and seeking protection of the police on the ground that<br \/>\nshe was being given threatening calls and threatening letters.  It cannot also<br \/>\nbe forgotten that the person, who lost the life was the husband  of  President<br \/>\nof village  panchayat.   In our opinion, the consideration of this material to<br \/>\nbe sufficient to cause the disturbance of the public order cannot be  said  to<br \/>\nbe erroneous, on the part of the detaining authority.  When we see the grounds<br \/>\nclosely,  this  common  thread of long political rivalry and the fierce result<br \/>\nthereof  a murder of the husband of the President of the village panchayat<br \/>\nhave been  taken  into  consideration  by the detaining authority.  We cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore, persuade ourselves to accept the contention that this was merely  a<br \/>\ndisturbance to the law and order rather than public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   Learned counsel tried to urge that the incident had taken<br \/>\nplace at night and there was nothing to suggest that it took place in presence<br \/>\nof the villagers.  In fact, the bail application was rejected by the  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge  on  the ground that there was enough evidence available to suggest that<br \/>\nthe detenu with others had taken part in committing the overt act against  the<br \/>\nsaid Kutty.    It  cannot,  therefore, be said that the act on the part of the<br \/>\ndetenu in committing the assault with deadly weapons  and  thereby  committing<br \/>\nthe murder of Kutty, husband of the President of the village panchayat, can be<br \/>\ndubbed only  as  disturbing  the  law and order and not the public order.  The<br \/>\ncontention, therefore, must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Lastly, Mr.  Swamidoss Manoharan, argued that  the  detenu<br \/>\nhad  sought  the  copy  of  the affidavit sworn by the sponsoring authority by<br \/>\nwhich he placed the copy of the order dated  16-8-2002  before  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  The  argument  is  duel.   Firstly, it is contended that such copy<br \/>\ncame to be surreptitiously pasted in the documents which have  been  supplied;<br \/>\nalternatively,  the  argument is that if the copy of the order dated 16-8-2002<br \/>\nwas actually supplied to the detaining authority then, necessarily it  had  to<br \/>\nbe  supplied  only  by  way  of  an additional affidavit because all the other<br \/>\npapers must have already been supplied to the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In the first place, there is nothing on record to  suggest<br \/>\nthat  any  additional  affidavit  was  sworn  and  supplied  to  the detaining<br \/>\nauthority by the sponsoring authority.  The argument of the learned counsel is<br \/>\nbased on the presumption that all the documents and the affidavit came  to  be<br \/>\nsupplied  earlier  to  16-8-2002  and on that basis the order of detention was<br \/>\npassed on 16-8-2002.  It cannot be forgotten that the bail application came to<br \/>\nbe rejected by order dated 14-8-200 2 and the copy thereof was made  available<br \/>\nto the  sponsoring authority only on 16-8-2002.  Under such circumstances, the<br \/>\ncopy could have been supplied to the detaining authority even on 16-8-2002 and<br \/>\nbefore the detention order was passed.  Therefore, this  question  also  pales<br \/>\ninto insignificance.    Learned counsel, however, says that the said affidavit<br \/>\nwas not supplied.  In our opinion that there was such an affidavit  is  itself<br \/>\nnot  established  and,  therefore,  there will be no question of any prejudice<br \/>\nbeing caused to the detenu because of the nonsupply of the alleged  additional<br \/>\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Lastly,  learned counsel relied on the question of delay<br \/>\nin consideration of the representation.  The first  representation,  dated  13\n<\/p>\n<p>-9-2002,  made  by  the  detenu  was  received  by  the Government through the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board and it came to be rejected  by  the  Government  on  30-9-2002.<br \/>\nThis representation  was  received  by  the  Government  on  16  -9 -2002.  It<br \/>\nimmediately called the parawise remarks on 17-9-2002, which  was  received  by<br \/>\nthe Government  only on 24-9-2002.  Thereafter, the file was placed before the<br \/>\nUnder Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 26-9-2002.  It is to be remembered<br \/>\nthat 21st, 22nd, 28th and 29th October, 2002 were holidays.  Therefore,  there<br \/>\nwas no  question  of  any  delay here.  Ultimately, the Honble Minister dealt<br \/>\nwith the representation on 30-9-2002 and rejected it on 30-9-2002 itself.   If<br \/>\nthe  file was put before the Honble Minister on 30-9-2002 and was disposed of<br \/>\non the very same day itself, there was no question of any delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  Learned  counsel,  however,  points  out  that  one  more<br \/>\ndetailed  representation, dated 30-9-2002, was made by the detenu and that was<br \/>\nnot properly considered in time.  Learned Additional  Public  Prosecutor  drew<br \/>\nour attention   at  the  counter  wherein  the  time-table  is  given.    This<br \/>\nrepresentation was received by the Government on 4-10-2002.  Parawise  remarks<br \/>\nwere called  from  the detaining authority on 7-10-200 2.  5th and 6th October<br \/>\nwere holidays being Saturday and Sunday.  The remarks were  received  back  by<br \/>\nthe Government on 5-11-2002.  The matter was considered by the Under Secretary<br \/>\non  7-11-2002  and  by  the  Deputy  Secretary on 8-11-2002, while it was kept<br \/>\nbefore the Honble Minister on 11-11-2002 and it was rejected on 13-11-2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  Learned counsel takes exception  to  the  period  between<br \/>\n7-10-200<\/p>\n<p>2 and  5-11-2002.    It  is  pointed  out  by  the  learned  Additional Public<br \/>\nProsecutor that 12th to 15th, 19th, 20th, 26th and 27th of  October,  2  0  02<br \/>\nwere holidays.    Learned  Additional  Public Prosecutor argues that some time<br \/>\nwould be required because the Government had to call the parawise remarks from<br \/>\nthe detaining authority, viz.  District  Collector  and  District  Magistrate,<br \/>\nKancheepuram  who  had to further call the remarks of the sponsoring authority<br \/>\nand after receipt of those remarks had to despatch the same to the Government.<br \/>\nIf, in the whole process, as many as eight to ten days  were  holidays,  there<br \/>\nwould be no question of any delay.  Learned counsel also pointed out that some<br \/>\ntime would be required in the post-office also.  Therefore, the explanation is<br \/>\nreasonable  and  we  are  of  the  clear  opinion  that  there  is no delay in<br \/>\nconsideration of the second representation also.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  In short, we are of the clear view that the petition  has<br \/>\nno merits and must be rejected.  It is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Jai<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nrepresented by the<br \/>\nSecretary to Government<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department<br \/>\nChennai  9<\/p>\n<p>2.  District Collector and<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate<br \/>\nKancheepuram District<br \/>\nKancheepuram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26\/03\/2003 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR and The Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ H.C.P. No.2154 OF 2002 Kumari &#8230;.. Petitioner -Vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to [&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-201494","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>Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - 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\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-25T02:19:19+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T02:19:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2352,\"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\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T02:19:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - 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\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-25T02:19:19+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T02:19:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"},"wordCount":2352,"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\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003","name":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T02:19:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumari-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kumari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/201494","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=201494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}