{"id":210331,"date":"2008-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-20T10:38:27","modified_gmt":"2015-04-20T05:08:27","slug":"jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: B . K.G.<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                          REPORTABLE\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                2008\n      (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 1248 of 2006)\n\nJAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL\n @ SUBRAMANIAM                                ...APPELLANT\n\n                         VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU                           ...RESPONDENT\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.       :\n\n1.   Leave granted.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
2.   The appellant herein is one of the accused in a Crime<\/p>\n
registered by Vishnu Kanchi Police Station at Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n
The police after investigation filed final report on 21-1-2005<\/p>\n
and the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge-<\/p>\n
Chinglepet and was registered as Session Case No. 197\/05.
\n                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellant then moved this Court under Section 406 of<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.) seeking transfer of the case to any other State. The<\/p>\n
appellant alleged in the Transfer Petition that he was being<\/p>\n
unnecessarily harassed by the State of Tamil Nadu and that<\/p>\n
he would not get a fair trial. This Court in SRI JAYENDRA<\/p>\n
SARASWATHI SWAMIGAL (II), T.N. v.           STATE OF TAMIL<\/p>\n
NADU<\/a>    (2005) 8 SCC 771 considered the matter in detail and<\/p>\n
reached the following conclusion in paragraph 24          of the<\/p>\n
judgment :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “Taking into consideration the entire
\n              facts and circumstances of the case and
\n              the material on record, we have no
\n              hesitation in holding that the petitioner
\n              and other co-accused of the case have a
\n              reasonable apprehension that they will
\n              not get justice in the State of Tamil
\n              Nadu. We would like to clarify here that
\n              we are casting no reflection on the
\n              district judiciary in the State of Tamil
\n              Nadu.     But it is the actions of the
\n              prosecuting      agency and the State
\n              machinery, which are responsible for
\n              creating a reasonable apprehension in
\n              the mind of the petitioner and other co-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
            accused that they will not get justice if
\n            the trial is held in any place inside the
\n            State of Tamil Nadu. We are, therefore,
\n            of the opinion that the interest of justice
\n            requires that the trial may be
\n            transferred to a place outside the State
\n            of Tamil Nadu.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus, the Sessions Case No. 197\/2005, pending before the<\/p>\n
Principal Sessions Judge, Chinglepet, was transferred to the<\/p>\n
court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry<\/p>\n
and was numbered as Sessions Case 94\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   The Home Department of the State of Tamil Nadu        on<\/p>\n
25-11-2005 appointed one Special Public Prosecutor and four<\/p>\n
Additional Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the trial<\/p>\n
of the Sessions case pending before the Principal District and<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. The appellant herein filed a<\/p>\n
petition before the Sessions court challenging the appointment<\/p>\n
of the Public Prosecutors by the State of Tamil Nadu and<\/p>\n
contended that the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu has no right to conduct the prosecution of
\n                                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
the Sessions case pending before the Pondicherry court,<\/p>\n
outside the State of Tamil Nadu.        The Principal Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Pondicherry, by an order dated 25-1-2006, held that<\/p>\n
under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. the State of Tamil Nadu has<\/p>\n
the power to appoint the Special Public Prosecutor for<\/p>\n
conducting the trial of the case and the State had not lost its<\/p>\n
right to appoint the Public Prosecutor, merely on account of<\/p>\n
transfer of the case to the Sessions court at Pondicherry. The<\/p>\n
court also noticed the fact that this Court,   while transferring<\/p>\n
the Sessions case at Pondicherry, had not specifically directed<\/p>\n
that the State of Tamil Nadu shall not appoint          a Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor to conduct the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   The appellant preferred a Revision Petition challenging<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Pondicherry.    The High Court of Madras confirmed           the<\/p>\n
decision of the Sessions court and held that the offence had<\/p>\n
been committed within the State of Tamil Nadu,               the
\n                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
investigation was done by the Tamil Nadu police and the<\/p>\n
committal proceedings had also taken place in the court at<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu and hence the Government of Tamil Nadu had the<\/p>\n
domain over that sessions case and unless this Court,<\/p>\n
considering the special circumstances, directs in a particular<\/p>\n
case, appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor by the State<\/p>\n
to which the case has been transferred in the interest of<\/p>\n
justice,   the   transferee State cannot normally venture to<\/p>\n
appoint any Special Public Prosecutor to handle the case<\/p>\n
which it received as per the orders of this Court.    The High<\/p>\n
Court was also of the view that it would be unjust to direct the<\/p>\n
transferee State Government to open the purse stings to meet<\/p>\n
out the expenditure for the appointment of a Special Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   The appellant has challenged the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Sessions court as well as the High Court by which the Special
\n                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor and Additional Special Public Prosecutors<\/p>\n
were appointed to conduct the trial of the case.<\/p>\n
6.   We heard the counsel for the appellant as well as counsel<\/p>\n
for the State of   Tamil Nadu. The counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
contended that the appointment of the Public Prosecutor is to<\/p>\n
be made by the State as per the procedure prescribed under<\/p>\n
Section 24 of Cr.P.C.    It is pointed out that the Government<\/p>\n
of Pondicherry has total authority to appoint a Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor or Additional Prosecutor       or a Special Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor to conduct a criminal case pending before any of<\/p>\n
the Sessions divisions of the State of Pondicherry which was<\/p>\n
formerly a Union Territory, now being a separate State and the<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu Government has no right to appoint any<\/p>\n
prosecutor – either a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor – to conduct a trial of a case pending before the<\/p>\n
Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.     The counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent on the other hand contended that this court while<\/p>\n
ordering the case transfer to the State of Pondicherry had not
\n                                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
specifically   directed that trial should be conducted by   the<\/p>\n
prosecutor appointed by the Government of Pondicherry and<\/p>\n
therefore,     State of Tamil Nadu has got the authority to<\/p>\n
appoint a Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial of such a<\/p>\n
case. It was argued that the incident had taken place in the<\/p>\n
State of Tamil Nadu and that being an offence        committed<\/p>\n
against the State of Tamil Nadu that State alone          could<\/p>\n
appoint the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of<\/p>\n
the case unless specifically otherwise directed by this Court<\/p>\n
while transferring the case under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
7.   For the purpose of understanding the scheme                of<\/p>\n
appointment of a Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial it is<\/p>\n
necessary to look into various provisions of Chapter II of the<\/p>\n
Cr. P.C.     Section 6 of Cr.P.C. prescribes that in every State<\/p>\n
there shall be following classes of criminal courts : Courts of<\/p>\n
Sessions, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (and in any<\/p>\n
Metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrate), the Judicial
\n                                                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Magistrate of the second class and Executive Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Section 7(1) prescribes that every State shall have a sessions<\/p>\n
division or shall consist of several sessions divisions and every<\/p>\n
sessions division shall, for the purposes of the Code, be a<\/p>\n
district or consist of districts. It also prescribes that every<\/p>\n
metropolitan area shall be a separate sessions division and<\/p>\n
district.   Sub-section (2) provides that the State may alter the<\/p>\n
limits of such division and districts after consultation        with<\/p>\n
the High Court. Section 9 requires that the State Government<\/p>\n
shall establish a court of sessions for every sessions division,<\/p>\n
and every court of sessions shall be presided over by a Judge<\/p>\n
to be appointed by the High Court. Section 10 deals with the<\/p>\n
constitution of the Assistant Sessions Judge and Section 11<\/p>\n
deals   with    the   constitution   of   the   court   of   Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrates. Section 12 deals with the appointment of Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.<\/p>\n
Sections 16, 17 and 18 deal with the constitution of the<\/p>\n
various Metropolitan Magistrates’ courts and Section 20 deals
\n                                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
with appointment of Executive Magistrate. Section 24 deals<\/p>\n
with   the     appointment   of   Public   Prosecutors.   “Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor” has been defined under Section 2(u) of the Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “Public Prosecutor” means any person
\n             appointed under Section 24, and
\n             includes any person acting under the
\n             directions of a Public Prosecutor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 24 (1) deals with          the appointment of Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for conducting any<\/p>\n
prosecution,     appeal or other proceedings on behalf of the<\/p>\n
Central Government or State Government in the High Court.<\/p>\n
Sub-section (3) of Section 24 requires that for every district,<\/p>\n
the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor and<\/p>\n
one or more Additional Public Prosecutors. Sub-sections (3) to<\/p>\n
(7) deal with appointment of Public Prosecutor, Additional<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor for the district. The power of appointment is<\/p>\n
given to the State Government and such appointment should
\n                                                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
be from a panel of names prepared by the District Magistrate<\/p>\n
in consultation with the Sessions Judge. Sub-section (7) of<\/p>\n
Section 24 provides that a person shall be eligible to be<\/p>\n
appointed as a Public Prosecutor or as an Additional Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-<\/p>\n
section (3) or sub-section (6) only if he has been in practice as<\/p>\n
an advocate for not less than seven years.          A conjoint reading<\/p>\n
of all these provisions would clearly show that the State<\/p>\n
Government         has   the   power   of    appointment      of   Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for each district or<\/p>\n
court of Sessions in the sessions division in the State to<\/p>\n
conduct      any    prosecution,   appeal     or    other   proceedings<\/p>\n
pending before       the courts in that State.       The power of the<\/p>\n
State Government to appoint            a     Public Prosecutor        and<\/p>\n
Additional    Public     Prosecutor         would    extend    only   for<\/p>\n
conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in<\/p>\n
the courts within the State. As per the procedure prescribed<\/p>\n
under Section 24, the State of Tamil Nadu can appoint a
\n                                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor to conduct criminal cases in any of the<\/p>\n
court in that State. Such powers cannot be exercised by the<\/p>\n
State Government to conduct cases in any other State. Once<\/p>\n
the case is transferred as per Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. to<\/p>\n
another State,   the transferor State   no longer   has control<\/p>\n
over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated in a<\/p>\n
different State to which the case has been transferred. It is<\/p>\n
the prerogative of the State Government to appoint a Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor to conduct the case which is pending in the<\/p>\n
sessions division of that State.   Of course, this Court while<\/p>\n
passing order of transfer,   can give an appropriate direction<\/p>\n
as to which State should appoint the Public Prosecutor to<\/p>\n
conduct that particular case. Such orders are passed having<\/p>\n
regard to the circumstances of the case and the grounds on<\/p>\n
which the transfer     has been effected.     This Court can<\/p>\n
certainly give directions irrespective      of the provisions<\/p>\n
contained in Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. But so far as this case<\/p>\n
is concerned,    nothing had been stated in the order of the
\n                                                              12<\/span><\/p>\n
transfer. The provisions contained in the Section 24 of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
shall prevail and it is for the appropriate State Government<\/p>\n
within whose area the trial is conducted to appoint Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor under sub-sections (3) to (7) of Section 24 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. is the Government of the State to which the case has<\/p>\n
been transferred.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   Sub-section (8) of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. is a special<\/p>\n
provision regarding the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.<\/p>\n
This power can be exercised by the Central Government and<\/p>\n
the State Government for the purpose of any case or class of<\/p>\n
cases, and a person who has been in practice as an advocate<\/p>\n
for not less than ten years may be appointed as a Special<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor. These powers are also to be exercised by<\/p>\n
the State Government of the transferee court where the<\/p>\n
sessions case is pending. Of course, the transferee State can<\/p>\n
appoint any person having qualification        prescribed   under<\/p>\n
sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
9.   The purpose of transfer of the criminal case     from one<\/p>\n
State to another is to ensure fair trial to the accused. In this<\/p>\n
case, the main ground on which the transfer of the sessions<\/p>\n
case was ordered from the Sessions court of      Chinglepet in<\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu to the Principal District and Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Pondicherry, was   that the action of the prosecution agency<\/p>\n
had created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the<\/p>\n
accused-appellant that he would not get justice      if the trial<\/p>\n
was held in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
plays a key role during trail of a Sessions case. Though the<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge has got a supervising control over the entire<\/p>\n
trial of the case, it is the Public Prosecutor who decides who<\/p>\n
are the witnesses to be examined on the side of the<\/p>\n
prosecution and    which witness is to be given up, or which<\/p>\n
witness is to be recalled for further examination.   For proper<\/p>\n
conduct of a criminal case the Public Prosecutor plays a vital<\/p>\n
role. It may also be noticed herein that under Section 225 of
\n                                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
the Cr.P.C. during every trial before the court of Sessions, the<\/p>\n
prosecution shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor and<\/p>\n
as regards withdrawal also, the Public Prosecutor in charge<\/p>\n
of the case has to make the application      for withdrawal of<\/p>\n
prosecution as per    Section 321 of the Cr.P.C.     In case of<\/p>\n
acquittal of the accused the State Government may direct the<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor to file an appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   As is evident from various provisions of the Cr.P.C., the<\/p>\n
State Government of Tamil Nadu can only appoint a Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor under Section 24 of the Cr.P.C. to conduct<\/p>\n
the prosecution and appeal, or other proceeding in any<\/p>\n
criminal courts in respect   of any case pending     before the<\/p>\n
courts of Tamil Nadu and in respect of any case pending<\/p>\n
before the Courts at Pondicherry, the State Government of<\/p>\n
Pondicherry is the appropriate Government to appoint Public
\n                                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or Special Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   However, we make it clear that the State of Pondicherry<\/p>\n
can appoint any counsel as Public Prosecutor            having<\/p>\n
requisite qualifications as prescribed under sub-section (8) of<\/p>\n
Section 24 of Cr.P.C. whether he is a lawyer in the State of<\/p>\n
Pondicherry or any other State. As it is a criminal case<\/p>\n
registered by the State of Tamil Nadu the expenses for<\/p>\n
conducting the trial are to be borne by the State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu.     The Advocate fees payable to the Public Prosecutor,<\/p>\n
Additional Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor by<\/p>\n
the State of Pondicherry shall be borne by the State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu and the Home Departments of the two States may<\/p>\n
undertake consultations with each other and an appropriate<\/p>\n
decision may be taken by the concerned authorities in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         16<\/span><\/p>\n
12.    We set aside the impugned order passed by the High<\/p>\n
Court and direct that the State of Pondicherry may continue<\/p>\n
with the prosecution of the case in accordance with the law<\/p>\n
and the Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor may<\/p>\n
be appointed by the State of Pondicherry to conduct the<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings in respect of Sessions Case No. 94 of<\/p>\n
2005     pending   before   Principal    &     Sessions        Judge       of<\/p>\n
Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.<\/p>\n
                                ……………………………………CJI<\/p>\n
                                 ( K.G. BALAKRISHNAN )<\/p>\n
                                 ………………………………………J.<\/p>\n
                                ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )<\/p>\n
                                ………………………………………J.
\n                                   17<\/span><\/p>\n
                 ( Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA )<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
JULY 22, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 Author: B . K.G. Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2008 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 1248 of 2006) JAYENDRA SARASWATI SWAMIGAL @ […]<\/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-210331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - 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\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-20T05:08:27+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T05:08:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2479,\"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\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T05:08:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - 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\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-20T05:08:27+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T05:08:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008"},"wordCount":2479,"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\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008","name":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T05:08:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jayendra-saraswati-swamigal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-22-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/210331","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=210331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}