{"id":228525,"date":"2000-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000"},"modified":"2017-01-16T15:52:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T10:22:09","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nR.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      THOMAS,  J.   Delay  condoned.\tLeave  granted.\t   A<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t of  Karnataka High Court went\toutside\t the<br \/>\nscope  of  the lis before it and made  certain\tobservations<br \/>\nwhich  are  not\t in tune with the  perceptions\tof  judicial<br \/>\nexercise.    Why  they\tdid  so\t in  this  case\t is   beyond<br \/>\ncomprehension.\t State of Karnataka, unable to abide by\t the<br \/>\ndirections issued as per the order, has filed this appeal by<br \/>\nspecial\t leave.\t For disposal of this appeal we did not find<br \/>\nany  necessity\tto  issue  notice  to  the  sole  respondent<br \/>\n(Registrar  General  of the High Court of Karnataka)  as  he<br \/>\nwould have nothing to say about the impugned directions.  So<br \/>\nwe  propose  to dispose of the matter without  bringing\t the<br \/>\nrespondent to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      How  the\tabove  situation reached can  be  summarized<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Seven  persons were prosecuted in a sessions court for<br \/>\nvarious\t offences,  the\t serious-most among  which  was\t the<br \/>\noffence\t under Section 307 of the IPC.\tAfter the trial\t the<br \/>\nSessions  Judge acquitted all the accused.  The testimony of<br \/>\nthe  eye  witnesses  examined  by the  prosecution  was\t not<br \/>\nbelieved by the Sessions Judge.\t At the same time he frowned<br \/>\nat  the\t investigation,\t as  is being done in  many  of\t the<br \/>\njudgments ending in acquittal.\tThe delay in dispatching the<br \/>\nFIR  to the magistrate was also highlighted in the  judgment<br \/>\nof the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  State of Karnataka filed a petition for leave  to<br \/>\nappeal\tagainst\t the said order of acquittal.  The  Division<br \/>\nBench  of  the\tHigh  Court, while refusing  leave,  made  a<br \/>\ndeparture   from  the  precedents   and\t issued\t an  unusual<br \/>\ndirection  to  the State Public Prosecutor like\t this:\t &#8220;We<br \/>\ndirect\tthe  learned SPP to forward a copy of this order  to<br \/>\nthe Secretary to Government (Home) as also to the Honourable<br \/>\nHome  Minister both of whom shall acknowledge the receipt of<br \/>\nthe same and shall report back to this Court within a period<br \/>\nof  two\t months as to what precisely is the reaction of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment to the observations of this High Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  Home Secretary and the Home Minister of the State<br \/>\nare  now compelled to react openly to the observations\tmade<br \/>\nin  the\t judgment  and to report to the High Court  on\tsuch<br \/>\nreactions.  It is necessary to extract the observations made<br \/>\nby M.F.\t Saldhana, J, who spoke for the Division Bench.\t The<br \/>\nfirst facet of the observations is the following:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;This  Court  has\t had occasion to deal with  a  large<br \/>\nnumber\tof  appeals filed against orders of acquittals.\t  In<br \/>\ncase  after  case,  it\tis noticed that\t it  is\t principally<br \/>\nbecause of poor investigation followed up by a total lack of<br \/>\ninterest in the conduct of the prosecution that has resulted<br \/>\nin  the accused being acquitted.  Murders are committed with<br \/>\nimpunity and the other set of cases of which we need to take<br \/>\nvery serious note relating to atrocities against women where<br \/>\neven the reported number of cases has sharply increased.  We<br \/>\nhave  come  across  a series of horrifying  incidents  where<br \/>\nyoung married women were harassed, tortured and set on fire,<br \/>\nanother\t line  of  cases  where girls and  women  have\tbeen<br \/>\nmolested, sexually attacked and raped.\tString of acquittals<br \/>\nin  all these cases which are as high as 96.4% only  because<br \/>\nthe  requisite evidence and the evidence of the quality that<br \/>\nthe   court   expects  has   not  been\t forthcoming.\t The<br \/>\ninvestigating  agencies\t namely\t the Police  Department\t are<br \/>\nresponsible to a very large extent for this deplorable state<br \/>\nof affairs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned\tcounsel\t for  the   State  made\t a  scathing<br \/>\nonslaught   on\t those\t  observations,\t  particularly\t the<br \/>\ndisparaging  remarks  made against the police department  of<br \/>\nthe  State as a whole and contended that they are absolutely<br \/>\nunnecessary   in   the\tpresent\t  case,\t apart\tfrom   being<br \/>\nunsupported  by any material whatsoever.  He submitted\tthat<br \/>\nthere  was no material available on record for the court  to<br \/>\nreach  such  omnibus  findings.\t Learned Judge\twent  on  to<br \/>\nobserve further as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Time  is\t of the essence as far as  investigation  of<br \/>\ncriminal cases are concerned and consequently, it is equally<br \/>\nimportant  that\t apart from the speed with which the  Police<br \/>\nact,  that the investigation has got to be done with a\thigh<br \/>\ndegree of efficiency and professionalism.  All these factors<br \/>\nare  lacking  in the majority of investigations.   There  is<br \/>\nsomething  seriously  wrong and we put it down to  the\tfact<br \/>\nthat obviously on all sorts of political considerations, the<br \/>\nrecruitment  process has been diluted to point of  induction<br \/>\ninto  the force of persons who should not have been there at<br \/>\nall.  It goes without saying that when this happens, one can<br \/>\nnever\texpect\t efficiency.   The   manner  in\t which\t the<br \/>\nrecruitments   are   done    and    more   importantly\t the<br \/>\nconsiderations\tleave much to be desired and if the law\t and<br \/>\norder machinery on which crores of rupees of tax payers many<br \/>\nis  being  spent  is at all to justify\tits  existence,\t the<br \/>\nGovernment   will  have\t to  take   serious  note   of\t the<br \/>\nobservations and rectify the state of affairs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      After making some more sweeping remarks on the present<br \/>\nsystem\tof  criminal law administration the Bench  said\t the<br \/>\nfollowing  also:  &#8220;Similarly, the principal disease that has<br \/>\ninfected  the  criminal justice system in the State  is\t the<br \/>\ncheerful  manner  in  which the Court is informed  that\t the<br \/>\nvital  witnesses are hostile who is responsible for this  is<br \/>\nnot  difficult\tfor  the  court to  infer,  the\t moment\t the<br \/>\nquestion  is  asked  as\t to who\t is  the  beneficiary.\t The<br \/>\ninvestigating  Agency  also owes a duty to ensure  that\t the<br \/>\nvital  witnesses are present and that they produce the\ttype<br \/>\nof  evidence which is expected of them.\t This aspect of\t the<br \/>\nmatter\twill  require very serious attention if at  all\t the<br \/>\nState  is  concerned about rectifying the present  state  of<br \/>\naffairs which is assuming disastrous proportion.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned  counsel\tfor  the State was  quite  right  in<br \/>\ncontending  that it was not the occasion for learned  Judges<br \/>\nof  the\t High Court for giving vent to their general  apathy<br \/>\ntowards\t the  present system of administration\tof  criminal<br \/>\njustice.   The direction that the Home Minister and the Home<br \/>\nSecretary  of  the  State  shall report to  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nregarding  their  reaction towards the observations made  in<br \/>\nthe  judgment is nothing but an exercise in redundancy, for,<br \/>\ntheir  reaction cannot be different from the views expressed<br \/>\nby  the Judges themselves.  How could they be different,  as<br \/>\nit  is\tunexceptional that the system should  improve.\t The<br \/>\nproblems  posed\t by  the  Judges have  already\tengaged\t the<br \/>\nattention of the Law Commission.  On more than one occasions<br \/>\nthe Commission has submitted its report for consideration by<br \/>\nParliament.   But  putting the blame largely on\t the  police<br \/>\nforce  of  the\tState for all the ills pointed\tout  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned Judges, without data or material or evidence in this<br \/>\ncase, is not a course which can meet with our approval.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned\tJudges\tpointed\t to   subjects\t which\t are<br \/>\nunfortunately  not connected with this case.  Those are- (1)<br \/>\nmurders\t committed with impunity, (2) the increase in  cases<br \/>\ninvolving atrocities against women, (3) harassment inflicted<br \/>\non  young  married  women  including  &#8220;bride  burning&#8221;,\t (4)<br \/>\nmolestation  and  rape\tof girls and young women.   We\thave<br \/>\nalready extracted a gist of the facts of this case.  None of<br \/>\nthe  fields  to which learned Judges pointed  their  fingers<br \/>\nwould  cover  the facts of this case.  Hence learned  Judges<br \/>\ndealt  with  subjects  which are totally ungermane  and\t far<br \/>\nbeyond\tthe scope of this case as though it was presentation<br \/>\nof  a paper in a seminar.  Why should the Home Minister\t and<br \/>\nthe  Home  Secretary  react to the  observations  which\t are<br \/>\nabsolutely uncalled for on the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Judicial\tdisposition  is definitely different from  a<br \/>\npaper  presented  for  seminar discussion.  Nor\t can  it  be<br \/>\nequated with a dissertation.  Judicial decorum requires that<br \/>\njudgments  and orders should confine to the facts and  legal<br \/>\npoints\tinvolved  in the particular cases which Judges\tdeal<br \/>\nwith.\tMay be, sometimes Judges would, perhaps wittingly or<br \/>\neven   unwittingly,   jut  outside   the  contours  of\t the<br \/>\nlitigation,  but  even\tsuch overlappings should  be  within<br \/>\nbounds\tof  propriety  and  sobriety.\t But  there  is\t  no<br \/>\njustification  for  traversing so far beyond the convass  as<br \/>\nwas  done  by the High Court in this case or to cover  areas<br \/>\nwhich  are  grossly extraneous to the subject matter of\t the<br \/>\ncase.\tIf the subordinate courts are also to be tempted and<br \/>\nencouraged  to\tfollow\tsuit by travelling far\toutside\t the<br \/>\nscope  of  the lis the consequences would be far  too  many.<br \/>\nDemoralisation\tof departments would badly erode the already<br \/>\nimpaired  efficiency  of our forces.  It is time  to  remind<br \/>\nourselves  once\t again that judgment should confine  to\t the<br \/>\nscope of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      <a href=\"\/doc\/1498181\/\">In  the State of Uttar Pradesh vs.  Mohammad Naim<\/a> {AIR<br \/>\n1964  SC 703 = 1964 (2) SCR 363} a four Judge Bench of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  heard  the  grievance of a  State  regarding  certain<br \/>\nsweeping  remarks made by a learned Judge of the High  Court<br \/>\nwho  dealt with the case of a police officer.  The judge  of<br \/>\nthe High Court had stated in his Judgment that &#8220;(a) If I had<br \/>\nfelt  that  with my lone efforts I could have  cleaned\tthis<br \/>\naugean\tstable, which is the police force, I would not\thave<br \/>\nhesitated to wage this war single handed.  (b) That there is<br \/>\nnot a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose<br \/>\nrecord\tof  crime  comes anywhere near the  record  of\tthat<br \/>\norganised  unit\t which is known as the Indian Police  Force.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  Where  every fish barring perhaps a few stinks,  it  is<br \/>\nidle to pick out one or two and say that it stinks.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      S.K.   Das, J.  (as he then was) speaking for the four<br \/>\nJudge Bench expressed complete disapproval of those impugned<br \/>\nobservations and reminded thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;It  is  not infrequent that sweeping  generalisations<br \/>\ndefeat\tthe  very purpose for which they are made.   It\t has<br \/>\nbeen  judicially  recognised  that in the matter  of  making<br \/>\ndisparaging  remarks  against persons or  authorities  whose<br \/>\nconduct\t comes into consideration before a courts of law  in<br \/>\ncases  to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a)<br \/>\nwhether the party whose conduct is in question is before the<br \/>\ncourt  or  has\tan opportunity of  explaining  or  defending<br \/>\nhimself;  (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on<br \/>\nthat  conduct justifying the remarks;  and (c) whether it is<br \/>\nnecessary  for the decision of the case, as an integral part<br \/>\nthereof,  to  animadvert on that conduct.  It has also\tbeen<br \/>\nrecognised  that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in<br \/>\nnature,\t and  should  not  normally  depart  from  sobriety,<br \/>\nmoderation and reserve.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      During  the  36  years which elapsed  thereafter\tthis<br \/>\nCourt has reiterated those words on different occasions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      {<a href=\"\/doc\/1250204\/\">R.K.   Lakshmanan vs.  A.K.  Srinivasan &amp;<\/a> anr.,\t1976<br \/>\n(1)  SCR  204  =  AIR 1975 SC  1741,  <a href=\"\/doc\/167767\/\">Niranjan\tPatnaik\t vs.<br \/>\nSashibhushan  Kar &amp;<\/a> anr., 1986(2) SCC 569 = AIR 1986 SC 819,<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/338325\/\">S.K.   Viswambaran  vs.\t E.  Koyakunju &amp; ors.<\/a>, 1987 (2)\t SCC<br \/>\n109 = AIR 1987 SC 1436}.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  would have been very appropriate if learned Judges<br \/>\nof  the Division Bench who rendered the impugned order would<br \/>\nhave  reminded themselves of the above equation administered<br \/>\nby the apex court more than three decades ago.\n<\/p>\n<p>      For  the\taforesaid reasons we have to interfere\twith<br \/>\nthe  impugned  order.\tWe hereby set aside  the  directions<br \/>\nissued to the State Public Prosecutor as well as to the Home<br \/>\nMinister and Home Secretary of the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appeal is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..J<br \/>\n[ K.T.\tThomas ]<\/p>\n<p>      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J.<br \/>\n[ R.P.Sethi ]<\/p>\n<p>      New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n<p>      August 10, 2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Regularised.   Now the High Court is to dispose of the<br \/>\nappeal\tin accordance with law.\t As this is an old matter we<br \/>\ndirect\tthe Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to<br \/>\ninclude\t the appeal in the hearing list, as expeditiously as<br \/>\npossible.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Parties  are directed to appear before the High  Court<br \/>\non  4-9-2000  and  no fresh notice need be issued  for\tthis<br \/>\npurpose.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000 Bench: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/08\/2000 BENCH: R.P.Sethi, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: THOMAS, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court [&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-228525","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>State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T10:22:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T10:22:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1964,\"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\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T10:22:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - 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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T10:22:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T10:22:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000"},"wordCount":1964,"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\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000","name":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court ... on 10 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T10:22:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-the-registrar-general-high-court-on-10-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs The Registrar General, High Court &#8230; on 10 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/228525","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=228525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}