{"id":207080,"date":"1997-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997"},"modified":"2017-03-04T02:28:33","modified_gmt":"2017-03-03T20:58:33","slug":"rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","title":{"rendered":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: M J Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAO SOMASHEKARA & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/09\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nSUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t  W I T H
\n       (Writ Petition Nos. 827\/90, 822, 416 & 718\/91)
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.\n<\/p>\n
     These five writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution of\t India are  all connected and raise the same
\nquestions.  The petitioners are Secondary School Teachers in
\nthe State  of Karnataka serving in Government and Government
\naided Secondary Schools.\n<\/p>\n
     Certain Secondary grade teachers in the former State of
\nHyderabad which\t were allotted\tto the State of Karnataka as
\non 1.11.1956.  After reorganisation, the corresponding posts
\nin former  State of Mysore were equate with the posts of the
\nallotted personnel.   There  was revision  of pay  scale  on
\n1.1.1957 and  again on\t1.1.1961 but  the disparity  in\t pay
\nscales was  allowed to continue.  This anomaly was continued
\ntill 1.1.1970  – for  nearly fourteen  years, when  for\t the
\nfirst time  under the  concerned  Karnataka  Civil  Services
\n(Revised Pay Rules), 1970 which came into force on 1.1.1970,
\nbased on  the report of the pay Commission headed by Justice
\nTukol, the  scales  were  brought  on  par  with  scales  of
\nallotted Hyderabad  officers prospectively  by enhancing the
\nscales of  the all  Karnataka teachers w.e.f. 1.1.1970.\t But
\nthe grievance of the Secondary School teachers of Government
\nof Karnataka  for the  period from  1.1.1957  to  31.12.1969
\ncontinued and  has not been removed.  That is the subject of
\nthese writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  stated that,  so far as disparities in pay among
\nMysore and  Karnataka Primary school teachers on the one had
\nand  allotted\tHyderabad  primary   school   teachers\t are
\nconcerned, Government  orders as  late as  1986 showed\tthat
\nthose grievance\t also arise out of the States Reorganisation
\nAct, 1956  in respect of pay scale disparities and have been
\nremoved by  the Government  of Karnataka.   On\tthat  basis,
\npetitioners,  Secondary\t  school  teachers   of\t Mysore\t and
\nKarnataka claim\t that distance\tof time is no bar to relieve
\ntheir  legitimate   grievance  for   the  period  1.1.57  to
\n31.12.69.\n<\/p>\n
     In support\t of this  contention, reliance\tis placed on
\ntwo sets of facts.\n<\/p>\n
     Firstly the  non-allottee primary\tschool\tteachers  of
\nKarnataka  filed  Writ\tPetition  No.2801  of  1971  in\t the
\nKarnataka High\tCourt for  equating their pay scale with the
\nHyderabad area\tprimary school\tteachers.   The\t High  Court
\ndismissed the  said writ petition on 10.1.1975 on the ground
\nof laches after however holding that the denial of equal pay
\nwas discriminatory.   In SLP No.908 of 1975 preferred by the
\nWrit petitioners therein to this Court in Sri Raghuram Hegde
\n& others  vs. State  of Mysore,\t a compromise was arrived at
\nwith prospective  effect from  1.1.1978 stating\t that 50% of
\nthe difference\tbetween the  pay scales\t will be given.\t The
\npay as\ton 1.1.1978 of the Karnataka Primary School teachers
\nwas to be increased by 50% prospectively w.e.f. 1.1.78.\t The
\nscales were  increased only  for purpose  of computation and
\nfixation  of  pay  but\tnot  for  payment  of  arrears\tupto
\n31.12.77.  Various details as contained in the compromise so
\narrived at  were incorporated  in  the\tproceedings  of\t the
\nGovernment of  Karnataka dated\t10.8.1979.   Again, when the
\nabove  compromise  was\tbeing  implemented,  the  Government
\nstopped the  benefit of\t this compromise  from\taccruing  to
\nprimary school\tteachers recruited in the State of Karnataka
\nafter 1.11.56.\t This  was challenged  successfully in\tB.T.
\nRamaswamy vs.  State of\t Karnataka (W.P.  54\/82\t and  batch)
\nbefore the  High Court\tof Karnataka  by judgment dated 6.12
\n1985.\tThereafter Government  issued an  order as  late  as
\n8.7.1986. extending the benefit of its order dated 19.8.1979
\nby giving  increased scales  of pay  to all  primary  school
\nteachers i.e.  not only\t to those  of erstwhile Mysore State
\nbut also  to the primary teachers recruited after 1.11.1956.
\nThis was  restricted to\t primary teachers who were recruited
\nupto 31.12.1969.  The Government directed the payment of the
\nhigher pay  scale as per their earlier order dated 10.8.1979
\nand arrears  for the  period 1.1.78  to 31.4.1986 were to be
\ncredited to  the General  Provident  Fund  Account  and\t the
\ndifference payable  after 1.1.1986  to\tthe  primary  school
\nteachers was to be paid in cash.  Thus as late as 8.7.96 the
\nstate of Karnataka removed grievances of primary teachers in
\nregard to  pay etc.   as  compared  to\terstwhile  Hyderabad
\nprimary teachers allotted to Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
     Secondly,\t the Karnataka\tHigh Court by judgment dated
\n7.9.1975 extended the benefits of the Government order dated
\n10.8.79 to  primary school teachers in grant-in-aid schemes.
\nThis was  not interfered  with by  this Court  in  State  of
\nKarnataka  vs.\t A  Venkatappayya   (CA\t No.13757\/96<\/a>   dated
\n28.10.97).  In that judgment this Court also referred to the
\ndismissal of  SLPs (C)\t21003-113 etc. of 1993 dated 22.8.94
\nwhereby this  Court refused  to interfere  with the order of
\nthe State  Administrative Tribunal extending the benefits of
\nthe order dated 10.8.79 to the primary school teachers under
\nthe local authorities of Karnataka.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the above said two positive developments in
\nfavour of  primary school  teachers,  the  Secondary  school
\nteachers approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in
\nOA 2205 and 2206 of 1987 contending that they should get pay
\nscale  equalisation   for  the\t period\t from\t1.1.1957  to
\n31.12.1969 also.   The\tTribunal rejected  the petition\t the
\nground of  laches on  14.12.1989.   Thereafter, the  present
\nWrit petitions\thave been filed by other Karnataka Secondary
\nGrade Teacher  in this\tCourt claiming\teqalisation  of\t pay
\nscales from  1.1.1957 to  31.12.1969 and  payment of arrears
\nfor that  period.   That is  how these\twrit petitions\thave
\narisen.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is   contended\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners Secondary  School teachers\tthat as late as 1986
\nand now\t 1994 and  1996 all  pay-scale grievance  of primary
\nschool teachers\t of almost  all descriptions  arising out of
\nStates Reorganisation  Act, have  been favourably removed by
\nthe State  government, but  the grievances  of the Secondary
\nSchool teachers,  also arising\tout of\tState Reorganisation
\nfor  the   period  1.1.1957  to\t 31.12.1969  have  not\tbeen
\nredressed and  this is discriminatory It is pointed out that
\nthis was done by even directing the arrears to be credited t
\ntheir P.F.  account and\t extending all\tbenefits to  primary
\nteachers recruited  after 1.11.1956  upto 31.12.1969.\t The
\npetitioners contend  that the  fixation of  31\/12\/96 as\t the
\ndate from which the equality will be maintained is not based
\non any\trational criteria  having nexus\t with the  anomalies
\narising out of the State Reorganisation Act. Learned counsel
\nfor some  of the  petitioners Mr.  S.R. Bhat  argued that in
\nregard to  the\tperiod\tfor  1.1.57  to\t 31.12.69  the\tvery
\ncontinuance of\tthe grievance  for 14  years after 1.11.1956
\ntill  1.1.1970\t was  violative\t  of  Article\t14  of\t the
\nConstitution  of  India.    Learned  counsel  placed  strong
\nreliance on  the judgment  of this  Court in  Motor  General
\nTraders vs.  State of  A.P. [1984  (1) SCC  222]  and  other
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
     On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted
\nthat on\t account of State Reorganisation in 1956, difference
\nin scales  of  pay  between  allottee  officers\t and  Mysore
\nofficers are  bound to arise and are justified on account of
\nhistorical reasons  attributable to  different\tgeographical
\nareas.\t It is\talso contended\tthat the petitioners who are
\nSecondary School  teachers, have  the  petitioners  who\t are
\nSecondary School  teachers, have  opted for Karnataka Scales
\nafter 1.11.1956\t and cannot  now raise these contention.  it
\nis also\t stated that  the case of primary teachers cannot be
\nrelied upon  to raise  a plea of discrimination, even if the
\ngrievances arise  out of  States Reorganisation.   The State
\nhas various options while clearing grievances and if it opts
\nfor a  particular formula  or fixes  a particular  date upto
\nwhich alone  the pay  scales can  be revised.\t It  is\t not
\npermissible for\t the Court  of judicial\t review to interfere
\nwith such a choice.  The finances of the State do not permit
\ngrant of this benefit to the secondary school teachers.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t had occasion to go into the question of the
\ntemporary nature  of the  continuance of existing laws under
\nSection 119  of the  States  Reorganisation  Act,  1956\t and
\nwhether delays in rectifying the inequalities arising out of
\nthe said  Act should  be rectified  by the  State within any
\nparticular time\t frame.\t  In State  of\tMadhya\tPradesh\t vs.
\nBhopal Sugar  Industries Ltd.<\/a> [1964 (6) SCR 846 (852-854) it
\nwas observed  that though continuance of the laws of the old
\nregion after  the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 by section
\n119 of\tthat Act was not by itself discriminatory even if it
\nresulted in  differential reactant  of persons,\t objects and
\ntransactions in the new State because of historical reasons,
\nstill  ‘passage\t  of  time’   could  make   the\t continuance
\ndiscriminatory.\t it was observed in the above case that:\n<\/p>\n
     “By   the\t  passage    of\t   time,
\n     considerations  of\t  necessity  and
\n     expediency\t would\tbe  obliterated,
\n     and  the\tground\twhich  justified
\n     classification   of    geographical
\n     regions for  historical reasons may
\n     cease  to\t be  valid.    A  purely
\n     temporary provision  which\t because
\n     of\t compelling   forces   justified
\n     differential  treatment   when  the
\n     Reorganisation  Act   was\t enacted
\n     cannot obviously  be  permitted  to
\n     assume   permanency,   so\t as   to
\n     perpetuate that treatment without a
\n     rational basis  to support it after
\n     the    initial    expediency    and
\n     necessity have disappeared.”\n<\/p>\n
     While accepting  that continuance\tof existing  laws in
\nthe new State could not be continued without rational basis,
\nthis Court pointed out further as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “But  whether  the\t continuance  of
\n     unequal laws  by  itself  sustained
\n     the plea of unlawful discrimination
\n     in view  of  changed  circumstances
\n     could only\t be ascertained\t after a
\n     null and  thorough enquiry into the
\n     continuance of the grounds on which
\n     the inequality  could rationally be
\n     founded,\tand    the   change   of
\n     circumstances,   if    any,   which
\n     obliterated   the\t compulsion   of
\n     expediency and  necessity\texisting
\n     at the time when the Reorganisation
\n     Act was enacted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Similar principles were laid down by this Court in H.H.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Shri Swamiji  of Shri Admar Mutt. etc. vs. The Commissioner.
\nHindu Religious\t & Charitable Endowments Department & Others
\n[1980 (1)  SCR 368  (387-388)] wherein\tit was observed that
\nthe “decision to withdraw the application of unequal laws to
\nequals cannot  be delayed unreasonably because the relevance
\nof historical  reasons ….  is bound  to wear\tout with the
\npassage of  time”.   On the  facts of  the case,  the  Court
\nrefrained from\tstriking  down\tthe  provision\tbecause\t the
\nperiod under  consideration was\t just five  or six years and
\nthere was  no adequate data available to decide the question
\nwhether the  continuance  of  the  legislation\tamounted  to
\nhostile discrimination.\t  The above rulings were followed in
\nMotor General  Traders\tvs.  State  of\tA.P.  cited  by\t the
\npetitioner’s counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     It is to be noticed that in these writ petitions, after
\n1.11.1956, the\tdisparities in\tthe scales  of pay continued
\ntill 1.1.970  and it  was only\tfrom that  date that, on the
\nbasis of  Justice Tukol Commission report, the scales of the
\nMysore\/Karnataka Secondary  School teachers  were brought on
\npar with  those of  the Secondary  School  teachers  of\t the
\nerstwhile  Hyderabad   State  allotted\t to  the   State  of
\nKarnataka.   In other  words, the  State took about fourteen
\nyears to  set right  the disparities.\tAs  to\twhether\t any
\ninquiry\t  is\tnecessary   for\t  deciding   about   hostile
\ndiscrimination, the  petitioners contend  that there  is  no
\ndispute because the posts in the allotted areas of Hyderabad
\nState  and  of\tKarnataka  were\t equated  soon\tafter  1956.
\nQuestion therefore  is whether,\t in Writ  petitions filed in
\nthis Court in 1991, we are compelled to interfere?\n<\/p>\n
     We are of the view that the State Government had before
\nit the\treport of the Commission and on that basis it took a
\ndecision  that\t the  disparities  should  stand  eliminated
\nprospectively from  1.1.1970 and  not  retrospectively\tfrom
\n1.1.1957.   The question  as to\t whether the date from which
\nthe scales  ought to have been equated should be 1.1.1970 or
\nan anterior  or a  later date  was a  matter which had to be
\narrived at  by taking  all factors into account.  It will be
\ndifficult for  this Court to decide as to from what date the
\ncontinuance of\tthe existing  scales should  be\t treated  as
\ndiscriminatory or  the continuance would loose its temporary
\ncharacter  arising   out  of   section\t119  of\t the  States
\nReorganisation Act.   It  may be that the State of Karnataka
\nfelt that  the grievance  of the non-allotted primary school
\nteachers whose\tsalaries were  lesser than  the salaries  of
\nnon-allotted Secondary\tSchool\tteachers  was  a  matter  of
\ngraver concern\trequiring redressal  even as late as 1979 or
\n1986.  Merely because the grievances of non-allotted primary
\nteachers were  remedied even  after  considerable  lapse  of
\ntime, we  cannot say  that grievances  of  secondary  school
\nteachers –  even if  it was  late –  should have  also\tbeen
\nredressed for the period 1.1.1957 to 31.12.1969.  Above all,
\nthe financial  burden involved was also a matter of relevant
\nconsideration.\t We are\t not therefore inclined to hold that
\nthe cut-off  dated of  1.1.1970 fixed  after the  report  of
\nJustice Tukol  Commission, in  regard  to  Secondary  School
\nteachers, is  arbitrary or  violative of Article 14.  In any
\nevent. principle  of laches  applies equally  to application
\nunder Article  32 of the Constitution o India [Rabindra Nath
\nvs. Union of India<\/a> (1970 (2) SCR 1697].\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons,  these writ  petitions\t are
\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 Author: M J Rao Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: RAO SOMASHEKARA & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/09\/1997 BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-207080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-03T20:58:33+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-03T20:58:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2095,\"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\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\",\"name\":\"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-03T20:58:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-03T20:58:33+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997","datePublished":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-03T20:58:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997"},"wordCount":2095,"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\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997","name":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-03T20:58:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-somashekara-others-vs-state-of-karnataka-another-on-16-september-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rao Somashekara & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Another on 16 September, 1997"}]},{"@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\/207080","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=207080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}