{"id":210693,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007"},"modified":"2014-03-17T15:48:27","modified_gmt":"2014-03-17T10:18:27","slug":"p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\nDATED: 04\/04\/2007\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\nH.C.P.(MD) No.79 of 2007\n\nP.Malarkodi\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.State of Tamilnadu\n   rep. by Secretary to Government\n   Prohibition and Excise Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai 9.\n\n2. The District Magistrate and\n   District Collector\n   Karur District\n   Karur\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\tHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating\nto the detention order passed by the second respondent in detention order in\nC.R.M.P.No.8 of 2006 dated 8.12.2006 and quash the same and direct the\nrespondents to produce the body of the detenu K.Modi alias Ponnusamy, son of\nKulanthan, now detained in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him\nat liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t:  Mr.N.Ananda Kumar\n^For Respondents\t:  Mr.Daniel Manoharan\n\t\t\t   Additional Public Prosecutor\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, the wife of<br \/>\nthe detenu namely Modi @ Ponnusamy, has made this petition seeking a writ of<br \/>\nhabeas corpus to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent<br \/>\ndated 8.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The order under challenge is perused.  The Court heard the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.On the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that 6 cases<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the Prohibition Act were registered against the detenu,<br \/>\nout of which 4 cases were pending trial, and 2 ended on admission by the detenu,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority, after perusal of the materials available, was of the<br \/>\nopinion that they were sufficient to record a finding that the detenu is a<br \/>\nbootlegger as defined under the provisions of Act 14\/82 since his activities<br \/>\nwere prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.  Hence,<br \/>\nhe passed an order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia would submit that the<br \/>\norder came to be passed on 8.12.2006; that the petitioner sent a pre-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation on 20.11.2006; that it was very well in the hands of the<br \/>\ndetaining authority; that the same was not only given in person but also sent by<br \/>\npost; that the receipt of the same is also well admitted in paragraph 4 of the<br \/>\ncounter; that if to be so, the detaining authority, after the passing of the<br \/>\norder, was expected to place the same before the Advisory Board while placing<br \/>\nthe order for approval; that he has neither considered nor placed the<br \/>\nrepresentation before the Advisory Board, and under the circumstances, the order<br \/>\nhas got to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the<br \/>\nprovisions of Sec.3 sub-section (3) of the Act.  He would submit that in view of<br \/>\nthe said proviso, the order is infirm, and it has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.It is not a matter in controversy that an order came to be passed by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority on 8.12.2006 terming the detenu  Modi @ Ponnusamy, the<br \/>\nhusband of the petitioner, as a bootlegger on the strength of the recommendation<br \/>\nmade by the sponsoring authority, wherein it was found that he was involved in 6<br \/>\nadverse cases, all under the Prohibition Act, out of which 4 were pending, and 2<br \/>\nended on admission.  According to the detaining authority, on scrutiny of the<br \/>\nmaterials, he was able to arrive at a subjective satisfaction, and it has got to<br \/>\nbe recorded that he is a bootlegger, since his activities are detrimental to the<br \/>\npublic order and public health.  Now, the petitioner has challenged the said<br \/>\norder on the above ground.  It is not in controversy that the order came to be<br \/>\npassed on 8.12.2006.  According to the petitioner, who is the wife of the<br \/>\ndetenu, a representation was sent on 20.11.2006.  As rightly contended by the<br \/>\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner, the receipt of the said representation is an<br \/>\nadmitted fact.  If to be so, the law would require that while passing an order<br \/>\nby the detaining authority on 8.12.2006, he is duty bound to consider the<br \/>\nrepresentation, and also after the passing of the order, the material namely the<br \/>\nrepresentation, which was earlier in point of time i.e., before the passing of<br \/>\nthe order under challenge, should have been placed before the Government.  Now,<br \/>\nit would be apt and appropriate to reproduce Sec.3 sub-section (3) of the Act as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 3: Power to make orders detaining certain persons:\n<\/p>\n<p>1. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>2. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>3. When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-<br \/>\nsection 2 he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together<br \/>\nwith the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as,<br \/>\nin his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in<br \/>\nforce for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the<br \/>\nmeantime, it has been approved by the State Government.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.A reading of the above provision would clearly reveal that when any<br \/>\norder is made under the said provision, the Officer who passed the order, shall<br \/>\nforthwith report the fact to the State Government, and while doing so, he must<br \/>\nplace the grounds on which the order has been passed and such other particulars<br \/>\nalso, as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter.  Now, at this juncture,<br \/>\nit is to be pointed out that such other particulars has wide connotation in the<br \/>\nopinion of the Court, which would also include the representation which was made<br \/>\nby the petitioner even before the passing of the order.  Thus, it would be<br \/>\nabundantly clear that a specific provision mandates that such other particulars<br \/>\nwhich have bearing on the matter, have got to be considered, and the detaining<br \/>\nauthority is also duty bound to place such materials before the State Government<br \/>\nalong with the order for approval.  In the instant case, though a representation<br \/>\nwas made, which was pre-detention representation, even on 20.11.2006, and it has<br \/>\nalso been received by the detaining authority, the same was neither considered<br \/>\nnor placed before the State Government along with the order for approval.  It<br \/>\ncan be well stated that the provision which mandates that all the particulars in<br \/>\nthe hands of the authority should also be placed along with the order, has not<br \/>\nbeen complied with.  In such circumstances, this Court is able to see the<br \/>\nviolation of the provision, which would be sufficient to set aside the order of<br \/>\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the<br \/>\norder of the second respondent.  The detenu is directed to be set at liberty<br \/>\nforthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n   Prohibition and Excise Department<br \/>\n   Fort St. George<br \/>\n   Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Magistrate &amp; District Collector<br \/>\n   Karur District<br \/>\n   Karur\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n<p>nsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/04\/2007 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.79 of 2007 P.Malarkodi .. Petitioner vs 1.State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George [&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-210693","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>P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-17T10:18:27+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-17T10:18:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1023,\"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\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-17T10:18:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-17T10:18:27+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-17T10:18:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007"},"wordCount":1023,"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\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007","name":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-17T10:18:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-malarkodi-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Malarkodi vs State Of Tamilnadu on 4 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/210693","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=210693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}