{"id":228424,"date":"1997-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"modified":"2017-01-28T09:30:25","modified_gmt":"2017-01-28T04:00:25","slug":"vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nVINAY PRAKASH &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF BIHAR &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     This is  the fourth attempt made by the Lohar Community<br \/>\nto get\tinto the  status of  Lohara. Lohars are, admittedly,<br \/>\nblacksmiths, a\tbackward community  in the  State of  Bihar.<br \/>\nLoharas are Scheduled Tribes in the State of Bihar.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This special  leave petition  arises from\tthe judgment<br \/>\nand order  of the Patna High Court, made on October 10, 1996<br \/>\nin LPA\tNo. 831\/96.  The President  of India, in exercise of<br \/>\nthe power under Article 342(1) of the Constitution read with<br \/>\nArticle 366(25), notified the Scheduled Tribes for the State<br \/>\nof Bihar  thus; &#8220;Such  tribes or tribal communities or parts<br \/>\nof or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are<br \/>\ndeemed under  Article 342  to be  Scheduled Tribes  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of  this Constitution.&#8221;\t Thereafter,  the  Scheduled<br \/>\nCastes and  Scheduled Tribes  Orders (Amendment)  Act,\t1976<br \/>\ncame to be made adding to or deleting from the lists certain<br \/>\ncastes. In  Entry 20 of the Entries in relation to the State<br \/>\nof Bihar,  Lohara was  wrongly translated  as Lohra  and the<br \/>\nsame was  published in\tthe State Gazette notification. That<br \/>\ncame to\t be  rectified\tby  notification  published  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment on  January 6,  1995. In the meanwhile, there was<br \/>\nspate of  litigation after  the 1976  Amendment Act  and the<br \/>\nLohars &#8211;  a backward  class &#8211; as stated earlier, claimed the<br \/>\nstatus of  Scheduled Tribes. When the said claims for social<br \/>\nstatus\tof   Scheduled\tTribes\tcame  to  be  rejected,\t the<br \/>\npetitioners approached\tthe courts. While the desired social<br \/>\nstatus certificate  were granted  by the  High Court in some<br \/>\ncases, the  same was  refused in others. When the matter had<br \/>\ncome up for the first time, before a Bench of three Judge of<br \/>\nthis Court,  to\t  which one  of us  (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a<br \/>\nmember, in  Shambhoo Nath vs. Union of India &amp; Anr. [ CA No.<br \/>\n4631\/90 decided\t on September  15,  1990],  it\twas  wrongly<br \/>\nconceded by  the counsel  appearing for\t the Union  of India<br \/>\nthat they  were entitled  to the status of Scheduled Tribes.<br \/>\nOn that\t premise, the  order of\t the Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nwas  set   aside  and  direction  was  given  to  issue\t the<br \/>\ncertificate of\tScheduled Tribes.  Since the  social  status<br \/>\ncertificate  were  not\tissued\tdespite\t direction  in\tthat<br \/>\nregard, a  writ petition under Article 32 was again filed in<br \/>\nthis Court  seeking a  writ of\tmandamus directing  all\t the<br \/>\nauthorities in\tthe State  to issue certificate in the light<br \/>\nof the\tjudgment passed\t by this  Court in  Shambhoo  Nath&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase. That  writ petition  was also  dismissed by a Bench of<br \/>\nthree Judges,  to which\t one us\t (K. Ramaswamy,\t J.)  was  a<br \/>\nmember.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Later,  the   matter  was\t considered  in\t extenso  in<br \/>\nNityanand Sharma  vs. State  of Bihar  [(1996)\t3  SCC\t576]<br \/>\nwherein, considering  the entire  history of  the Lohars and<br \/>\nLoharas, this  Court has  held in  paragraphs 10,11   and 12<br \/>\nthat Lohars  being backward  class, they  cannot  claim\t the<br \/>\nstatus as Lohara, which is a Scheduled Tribe and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe entitlement\t on that  basis\t  is unconstitutional and it<br \/>\nwas a  retrograde step\tto get\tinto the status of Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes to snatch the benefits made for the Scheduled Tribes.<br \/>\nIt was further held that all those judgments which had taken<br \/>\ncontra\tview   by  the\t High  Court   are  not\t  good\tlaw.<br \/>\nConsequently, they  filed yet  another writ  petition in the<br \/>\nHigh Court  claiming, on  the basis  of the orders issued by<br \/>\ncompetent authorities, the status of Lohara. In the impugned<br \/>\norder, the  Division Bench has held that in the light of the<br \/>\nlaw   laid by  this Court in Nityanand Sharma&#8217;s case, it was<br \/>\nnot open  to the  High Court  to go  into the  question\t and<br \/>\naccordingly it dismissed the writ petition. The LPA filed in<br \/>\nthat behalf  also came\tto be  dismissed. Thus, this special<br \/>\nleave petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe  petitioners,  has\tcontended  that\t this  Court  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/865073\/\">B.<br \/>\nBasavalingappa vs.  D. Munichinnappa<\/a>  [(1965) 1\t SCR 316  at\n<\/p>\n<p>322), <a href=\"\/doc\/251704\/\">Srish Kumar Choudhury vs. State of Tripura<\/a> [1990 Supp.<br \/>\nSCC 220\t para 12  and para 20] and Palghat Thandan Samudhava<br \/>\nSamrakshana Samiti  vs. State  of Kerala [1994] 1 SCC 359 at<br \/>\n364, para  14 and 19] had  considered and held that it would<br \/>\nnot be\topen to\t the Court  to enter  into an  enquiry as to<br \/>\nwhether a  particular caste  or tribe is Scheduled Tribe for<br \/>\nfinding out  whether they are entitled to the benefit of the<br \/>\nstatus conferred by the notification issued by the President<br \/>\nof India  under Article 341 and 342 of the  Constitution, as<br \/>\nthe case may be; therefore, the view of this Court mentioned<br \/>\nin Nityanand Sharma&#8217;s case is per incurium. We find no force<br \/>\nin the\tcontention. We\tmake it\t clear that  in the  English<br \/>\nversion of the Presidential notification Lohars in not shown<br \/>\nas a  Scheduled Tribe.\tBut in the translated Hindi version,<br \/>\nit  found   place  in  the  notification.  It  was  a  wrong<br \/>\ntranslation. This aspect was examined in detail in Nityanand<br \/>\nSharma&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  seen that  in Basavalingappa&#8217;s case the question<br \/>\nwas whether  &#8216;Bhovi&#8217; caste  was Scheduled  Caste within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning of  Presidential notification  for the\t purpose  of<br \/>\nfinding whether the respondent therein was a Scheduled Caste<br \/>\ncandidate for  the purpose  of contesting the elections as a<br \/>\nreserved candidate.  Admittedly, preceding the notification,<br \/>\nBhovi  caste   was  a\tScheduled  Caste   and\tunder  those<br \/>\ncircumstances, this  Court had gone into that question. This<br \/>\nCourt had referred to a two Judge Bench decision in Parasram<br \/>\nvs. Shivchand  [(1969) 1 SCC 20] and Srish Kumar Choudhary&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase wherein  this Court  had held that it would not be open<br \/>\nto the\tCourt  to  go  into  question  whether\t&#8216;mochi&#8217;\t was<br \/>\nincluded in  the  notified  caste  of  chamar.\tEqually,  in<br \/>\nPalghat&#8217;s case\t(supra) the question was whether Thandans or<br \/>\nEzhavas in  Malabar District,  which was  part of the Madras<br \/>\nProvince, were\tof Scheduled  Castes or Backward Classes and<br \/>\nin  view  of  the  admissions  made  by\t the  Government  in<br \/>\nparagraphs 14  and 19,,\t this Court had held that it was not<br \/>\nopen to\t the Government\t to go\tinto that question  until it<br \/>\nwas suitably  modified by  a Presidential  notification. All<br \/>\nthese cases have been considered in one judgment or other by<br \/>\nthis Court in particular in Nityanand Sharma&#8217;s case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  is:\twhether\t a  person,  who  is  not  a<br \/>\nScheduled  Tribe  under\t he  Presidential  notification,  is<br \/>\nentitled to  get the  status of\t a Scheduled  Tribe?  it  is<br \/>\nalready\t held\tthat  though  the  English  version  of\t the<br \/>\nPresidential notification  clearly mentions  &#8220;Lohara&#8221;, there<br \/>\nwas no\tmention of  Lohar. But while translating it,  Lohars<br \/>\nwere also  wrongly included as was pointed out by this Court<br \/>\nin Nityanand  Sharma&#8217;s case.  It would\t, thus, be seen that<br \/>\nthe   Presidential   notification   was\t  unequivocal\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore, Lohars  were\t not  Scheduled\t Tribes\t within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning of  the definition  &#8216;Scheduled Tribes&#8217; under Article<br \/>\n366 (25) read with the notification issued by the  President<br \/>\nof India  under\t  Article 342(1)  of the  Constitution\tand,<br \/>\ntherefore, this\t Court had  pointed out\t that they  are\t not<br \/>\nentitled to the status of Scheduled Tribes. It is clear that<br \/>\nif a  Presidential notification\t does contain  any  specific<br \/>\nclass or  tribe or  a part  thereof, then,  as held  by this<br \/>\nCourt, it  would be  for the  Parliament to  make  necessary<br \/>\namendments in  Article 342(2)  of the Constitution and it is<br \/>\nto for\tthe  executive\tGovernment  but\t for  the  Court  to<br \/>\ninterpret the  rules and construe as to whether a particular<br \/>\ncaste or a tribe or a part or section thereof is entitled to<br \/>\nclaim  the   status  of\t  Scheduled  Tribes.   Under   these<br \/>\ncircumstances, we  think  that\tthe  decision  in  Nityanand<br \/>\nSharma&#8217;s case  does not require any reconsideration; so also<br \/>\nother decisions\t referred to  therein except  the  Palghat&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase, which  was later considered in another judgment. Under<br \/>\nthese circumstances,  we do  not think\tthat  there  is\t any<br \/>\nillegality in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It is  then contended  that the doctrine of prospective<br \/>\napplication of\tthe judgment  in Nityanand Sharma&#8217;s case may<br \/>\nbe applied.  In support thereof, learned counsel relied upon<br \/>\ntwo judgments  of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1881749\/\">State of Karnataka vs. Kumar<br \/>\nG.N. Ambiga<\/a> [1995 Supp.(2) SCC 560] and <a href=\"\/doc\/540778\/\">Government of Andhra<br \/>\nPradesh vs.  Bala Musalaiah<\/a>  [(1995)  1\t SCC  184].  We\t are<br \/>\nafraid, we  cannot accede  to the  contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel.  This\tis  case  where\t the  respondents  were\t not<br \/>\nentitled, from\tthe  inception,\t to  the  social  status  of<br \/>\nScheduled Tribes.  Since the  entry gained by them was based<br \/>\non  wrong   translation\t made\tby  the\t Department  in\t the<br \/>\nnotification made  by the Department in the notification and<br \/>\nthe order  was obtained\t on that  basis, the  same cannot be<br \/>\nmade the  basis of  grant of the status of Scheduled Tribes.<br \/>\nWe cannot  allow perpetratration  of  the  illegality  since<br \/>\nunder the  Constitution they  are not at all entitled to the<br \/>\nstatus of  Scheduled Tribes.  Under these circumstances, the<br \/>\nabove two  judgements have  no application  to the  facts in<br \/>\nthis case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: VINAY PRAKASH &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: O R D E R This is 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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - 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\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-28T04:00:25+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-28T04:00:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1489,\"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\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\",\"name\":\"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-28T04:00:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 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":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - 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\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-28T04:00:25+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-28T04:00:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997"},"wordCount":1489,"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\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997","name":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-28T04:00:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinay-prakash-ors-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-17-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinay Prakash &amp; Ors vs State Of Bihar &amp; Ors on 17 February, 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\/228424","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=228424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}