{"id":215878,"date":"2005-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005"},"modified":"2015-02-17T15:09:07","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T09:39:07","slug":"k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 16\/08\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE            \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.KULASEKARAN          \n\nWrit Petition No.26004 of 2005\n\n\nK. Rajangam  \nBalasamudram Village, \nPalani Taluk,\nDindigul District.                              .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1.  The Superintendent\n   of Police,\n    Dindigul District,\n    Dindigul.\n\n2.  The District Collector,\n    Dindigul District, Dindigul.\n\n3.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n    Palani.\n\n4.  The Inspector of Police,\n    Palani Taluk P.S.,\n    Palani.\n\n5.  Mohammed Gani   \n    Balasamudram Village,\n    Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.            .. Respondents\n\n                Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to\n4  herein  to  avoid  communal clash by enforcing funeral procession of Muslim\ncommunity only through  Mandukal  street  at  Balasamuthiram  village,  Palani\nTaluk,  Dindigul  District  as  per agreement dated 12.4.19 98 reached between\nMuslim and Devendrakula Vellalar communities. \n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.  D.  Jayakumar\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.  V.Raghupathy \n                1 to 4 Govt.  Pleader\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by<br \/>\nThe Honourable The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n<p>        This writ petition is a sequel to our decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/872368\/\">Mohd.Gani  v.    The<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, Dindigul,<\/a> 2005(3) L.W 289.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing<br \/>\nthe  respondents  1  to  4  to  avoid  communal  clashes by permitting funeral<br \/>\nprocessions of Muslim community only through Mandukal street at Balasamuthiram<br \/>\nvillage, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District  as  per  agreement  dated  12.4.1998<br \/>\nreached between Muslim and Devendrakula Vellalar communities.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   We  heard  the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the<br \/>\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petitioner&#8217;s affidavit that in<br \/>\nthe  village  in  question  there  are  four  thousand  people  belonging   to<br \/>\nDevendrakula Vellalar Community whereas there are only one thousand Muslims in<br \/>\nthe village.    It  is further alleged in paragraph 3 of the affidavit that in<br \/>\nthe village, the Muslims traditionally use Devar East Street otherwise  called<br \/>\nMandukal Street to carry dead bodies to burial ground.  However, it is alleged<br \/>\nthat  one  Mohamed Gani the fifth respondent instigated the village Muslims to<br \/>\nuse Kottai Kaliamman Koil Street where  Karuppannasamy  temple  and  Kaliamman<br \/>\nKovil and  the petitioner&#8217;s house are said to be situated.  It is alleged that<br \/>\nan objection was  raised  and  then  an  agreement  was  reached  between  the<br \/>\nDevendrakula  Vellalar community people and the Muslim community people before<br \/>\nthe Revenue Divisional  Officer,  Palani,  the  third  respondent  herein,  on<br \/>\n12.4.1998  according  to  which the Muslim community people including the said<br \/>\nMohamed Gani the fifth respondent agreed to use Mandukal  street  for  funeral<br \/>\nprocession  and  not  to use Kottai Kaliamman Kovil Street running through the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s colony.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Mohamed Gani filed Writ Petition No.5202 of 1998  and  prayed  for<br \/>\npolice  protection  for  funeral  processions  of  Muslims  according  to  the<br \/>\nagreement dated 25.1.1998 and it is alleged that he did not make any member of<br \/>\nthe Devendrakula Vellalar community as a party in that writ petition.   It  is<br \/>\nalleged  that  even according to the agreement dated 25.1.1998 Muslims have to<br \/>\nuse Mandukal street only and not Kottai Kaliamman Street.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Writ Petition No.5202 of 1998 was decided  on  14.7.2005  by  this<br \/>\nCourt and that  decision is reported in 2005(3)L.W.  289 <a href=\"\/doc\/872368\/\">Mohamed Gani vs.  The<br \/>\nSuperintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is alleged that Muslims  want  to  carry  dead  bodies  through<br \/>\nKottai  Kaliamman  Street  instead  of the agreed route of Mandukal Street and<br \/>\nthereby there may be communal clashes.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  This is a free, democratic and secular  country  as  held  by  the<br \/>\nDivision Bench  of  this Court in Mohamed Gani&#8217;s case (supra).  India does not<br \/>\nbelong to Hindus alone.  It belongs equally to Muslims, Christians, Buddhists,<br \/>\nJains, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, etc.  and all are equal before the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  No doubt, one cannot carry dead bodies through private land but we<br \/>\ncannot see what objection can there be in carrying dead bodies through  public<br \/>\nstreets.   After all people of all communities have to take dead bodies to the<br \/>\ncremation ground or burial place, and for this purpose they have  to  use  the<br \/>\npublic streets or roads.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  <a href=\"\/doc\/872368\/\">In  Mohamed  Gani  vs.    The  Superintendent of Police, Dindigul<br \/>\nDistrict, Dindigul and others<\/a> (supra) we have discussed this matter  in  great<br \/>\ndetail  and hence we are not repeating the observations made in that judgment.<br \/>\nAs held by us in that judgment, the right to bury dead  bodies  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith  one&#8217;s  religious  rites and customs is a part of the essential religious<br \/>\nrites of every religious community and hence it cannot be  prohibited.    Such<br \/>\nreligious  rites are part of Article 25 of the Constitution which provides for<br \/>\nreligious freedom not only in the matter of beliefs but also in the matter  of<br \/>\nreligious rites.   The relevant case law on the point has been referred to and<br \/>\ndiscussed in detail in Mohd.Gani&#8217;s case (supra)<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In our opinion, even if there was an agreement between the Muslim<br \/>\ncommunity and the Devendrakula Vellalar community that Muslims  will  not  use<br \/>\nKottai  Kaliamman  Kovil  Street such an agreement will be in violation of the<br \/>\nconstitutional guarantee under Article 25 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.  It is well settled that there can be no waiver  of  fundamental<br \/>\nrights vide <a href=\"\/doc\/709776\/\">Olga Tellis v.  Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR<\/a> 1 986 SC 180<\/p>\n<p>        12.   In  Olga  Tellis&#8217;s  case  (supra),  a  Constitution Bench of the<br \/>\nSupreme Court observed (vide paragraph 28):  &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; There can be no estoppel against the Constitution.  The Constitution is  not<br \/>\nonly the paramount law of the land but, it is the source and sustenance of all<br \/>\nlaws.   Its  provisions  are  conceived in public interest and are intended to<br \/>\nserve a public purpose.  The doctrine of estoppel is based  on  the  principle<br \/>\nthat  consistency  in  word  and action imparts certainty and honesty to human<br \/>\naffairs.  If a person makes a representation to another, on the faith of which<br \/>\nthe  latter  acts  to  his  prejudice,  the  former  cannot  resile  from  the<br \/>\nrepresentation made by him.  He must make it good.  This principle can have no<br \/>\napplication  to representations made regarding the assertion or enforcement of<br \/>\nfundamental rights.  For example, the concession made by a person that he does<br \/>\nnot possess and would not exercise his right to free speech and expression  or<br \/>\nthe  right to move freely throughout the territory of India cannot deprive him<br \/>\nof those constitutional rights, any more than a concession that a person has o<br \/>\nright of personal liberty can justify his detention contrary to the  terms  of<br \/>\nArticle 22  of  the Constitution.  Fudamental rights are undoubtedly conferred<br \/>\nby the Constitution upon individuals which have to be asserted and enforced by<br \/>\nthem, if  those  rights  are  violated.    But  the  high  purpose  which  the<br \/>\nConstitution  seeks to achieve by conferment of fundamental rights is not only<br \/>\nto benefit individuals but to secure the larger interests  of  the  community.<br \/>\nThe Preamble of the Constitution says that India is a democratic Republic.  It<br \/>\nis  in order to fulfil the promise of the Preamble that fundamental rights are<br \/>\nconferred by the Constitution, some  on  citizens  like  those  guaranteed  by<br \/>\nArticles  15,  16, 19, 21 and 29 and, some on citizens and non-citizens alike,<br \/>\nlike those guaranteed by Articles 14, 21, 22 and 25 of the Constitution.    No<br \/>\nindividual can barter away the freedoms coferred upon him by the Constitution.<br \/>\nA  concession  made  by him in a proceeding, whether under a mistake of law or<br \/>\notherwise that he  does  not  possess  or  will  not  enforce  any  particular<br \/>\nfundamental  right,  cannot  create  an  estoppel  against  him in that or any<br \/>\nsubsequent proceeding.  Such a  concession,  if  enforced,  would  defeat  the<br \/>\npurpose of  the  Constitution.    Were  the  argument  of  estoppel  valid, an<br \/>\nallpowerful State could easily tempt  an  individual  to  forgo  his  precious<br \/>\npersonal freedoms on promise of transitory, immediate benefits.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Similarly  in <a href=\"\/doc\/68666\/\">Behram Khurshid v.  Bombay State, AIR<\/a> 1955 Sc 123 a<br \/>\nConstituion Bench of the Supreme Court (vide paragraph 52) observed:  &#8211;<br \/>\n&#8221; In our opinion, the doctrine of waiver enunciated by some American Judges in<br \/>\nconstruing the American Constitution cannot be introduced in our  Constitution<br \/>\nwithout a  fuller discussion of the matter.  No inference in deciding the case<br \/>\nshould have been raised on the basis of such a theory&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>        These fundamental rights have not been put in the Constitution  merely<br \/>\nfor  individual  benefit,  though  ultimately  they  come  into  operation  in<br \/>\nconsidering individual rights.  They have been put there as a matter of public<br \/>\npolicy and the doctrine of waiver can have no application to provisions of law<br \/>\nwhich have been enacted as a matter of constitutional policy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  Merely because there is a temple  adjacent  to  Kottai  Kaliamman<br \/>\nKovil  Street  and the house of the writ petitioner is situate there that does<br \/>\nnot mean that dead bodies cannot  be  carried  through  the  aforesaid  public<br \/>\nstreet.  After all it is a public street and not private land.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  Of course, if at a particular time poojas (e.g.  Aarti) are being<br \/>\nconducted  in  the  temple it is better if the Muslims avoid that time so that<br \/>\nthe feeling of the Hindus are not hurt, but they can carry their  dead  bodies<br \/>\nat other times.  A balance should be struck in this connection, but it is upto<br \/>\nthe local  authorities  to  make  such  an  arrangement.  In a secular country<br \/>\nnobody&#8217;s feelings should be hurt,  neither  the  feelings  of  Hindus  nor  of<br \/>\nMuslims nor  of  Christians  nor  of any other community.  No doubt in view of<br \/>\nArticle 25 of the Constitution the Muslims can carry dead bodies  through  any<br \/>\npublic  street  of  their  choice, but since Article 25(1) specifically states<br \/>\nthat this right is subject to public order, the authorities  can  direct  that<br \/>\ndead  bodies will not be carried through the street when a particular pooja is<br \/>\nbeing conducted in the temple so that the feelings of Hindus may not be  hurt.<br \/>\nIn this  way  a balance can be struck.  The District Collector and the Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, Palani will hence ensure that proper arrangements are made<\/p>\n<p>in this connection so that there may not be any communal clash.    With  these<br \/>\nobservations the  writ  petition is disposed off.  W.P.M.P.No.28424 of 2005 is<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes\/<br \/>\nInternet:Yes\/<\/p>\n<p>Vu\/pv<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Superintendent of Police,<br \/>\nDindigul District,<br \/>\nDindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Collector,<br \/>\nDindigul District, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\nPalani.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\nPalani Taluk P.S.,<br \/>\nPalani.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 16\/08\/2005 Coram THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE A.KULASEKARAN Writ Petition No.26004 of 2005 K. Rajangam Balasamudram Village, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District. .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The [&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-215878","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - 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\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-17T09:39:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T09:39:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1535,\"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\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\",\"name\":\"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T09:39:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - 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\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-17T09:39:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T09:39:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005"},"wordCount":1535,"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\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005","name":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T09:39:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajangam-vs-the-superintendent-on-16-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Rajangam vs The Superintendent on 16 August, 2005"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/215878","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=215878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}