{"id":229574,"date":"1991-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991"},"modified":"2015-07-15T19:28:06","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T13:58:06","slug":"smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1090, \t\t 1991 SCR (1) 421<\/div>\n
Author: J S Verma<\/div>\n
Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT.GRACY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/02\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nBENCH:\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1991 AIR 1090\t\t  1991 SCR  (1) 421\n 1991 SCC  (2)\t 1\t  JT 1991 (1)\t371\n 1991 SCALE  (1)211\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution of India, 1950: Article   22(5)-Preventive\ndetention  -Safeguards-Representation of detents  under\t the\nPrevention   of\t  Illicit Traffic in  Narcotic\t Drugs\t and\nPsychotropic   Substances   Act-Addressed  to  the  Advisory\nBoard-Consideration  by\t Government  independent of  Board's\nconsideration-Dual obligation of both  the  authorities-mode\nof    address\tonly   a   matter   of\t form-constitutional\nquarantee-Mandatory.\n     Prevention\t of  Illicit Traffic in Narcotic  Drugs\t and\nPsychotropic  Substances  Act,\t1988:  Section\t3-Preventive\ndetention-Represenation\t of  detents addressed\tto  Advisory\nBoard-Consideration  by\t Government independent\t of  Board's\nconsideration-Dual  obligation of both the  authorities-Mode\nof  address  only  a matter  of\t formConstitutional  mandate\nunderarticle 22(5)-Can't be whittled down.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioner's son was arrested on 19.10-1989 on\t the\naccusation  that  he  and  his\tbrothers  were\tinvolved  in\nextensive  illicit cultivation of ganja plants in  violation\nof  the\t provisions  of\t Narcotic  Drugs  and\tPsychotropic\nSubstances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Magistrate before\twhom\nhe was Produced, rejected the bail application. The Sessions\nCourt  granted conditional bail. The detention\torder  dated\n25.1.1990  was served on the detenu on 30.1.1990. The  order\nstated\tthat though prosecution was likely to  be  initiated\nunder  the  NDPS  Act, there was  every\t likelihood  of\t his\ncontinuing  the cultivation of ganja plants and\t thus  there\nwas  a compelling reason to detain him under the  Prevention\nof  Illicit  Traffic  in  Narcotic  Drugs  and\tPsychotropic\nSubstances  Act, 1988. The detenu was informed of his  right\nto make a representation to the detaining authority, Central\nGovernment  and\t the  Central  Advisory\t Board\tagainst\t the\ndetention  order.  The\tmode  of  representation  was\talso\nindicated along with the grounds of detention, in accordance\nwith Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.\n     In\t  accordance  with  the\t procedure,   the    Central\nGovernment  referred the case to the Central Advisory Board.\nDuring\tthe  pendency of the reference, the  detenu  made  a\nrepresentation\tto the\tAdvisory  Board. The Advisory  Board\nconsidered the reference along with  the  detenu's\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       422\nrepresentation\tand  came to the conclusion that  there\t was\nsufficient  cause  to  justify\this  preventive\t  detention.\nThereafter,  the  Central  Government made  an\torder  dated\n24.4.1990  confirming  its earlier order and  directing\t his\ndetention for a period of two years.\n     In the present Writ Petition, the mother of the  detenu\nprayed\tfor quashing of the detention order contending\tthat\nthere  has  been infraction of the guarantee  under  Article\n22(5)  of  the\tConstitution  as a  result  of\tthe  Central\nGovernment's omission to consider the representation of\t the\ndetenu,\t independent  of its consideration by  the  Advisory\nBoard.\tPetitioner also challenged the stand of the  Central\nGovernment  that there was no obligation on it\tto  consider\nthe  representation  of the detenu independently  since\t the\nsame  was  addressed to the Advisory Board and\tnot  to\t the\nCentral Government.\n     Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,\n     HELD:  1. The obligation of the Government to  consider\nthe  representation  is\t different and in  addition  to\t the\nobligation of the Advisory Board to consider it at the\ttime\nof  hearing the reference before giving its opinion  to\t the\nGovernment.  Consideration  of\tthe  representation  by\t the\nGovernment  has\t to  be\t uninfluenced by  the  view  of\t the\nAdvisory   Board.  The\tdetenu's   right   to\t have\t the\nrepresentation\tconsidered  by\tthe Government under Article\n22(5)\tof  the\t Constitution\tis   independent    of\t the\nconsideration  of the detenu's case and\t his  representation\nby  the Advisory Board. [426G-H]\n     K.M.  Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul\t Khader\t  v.   Union\nof  India and Ors., State of Karnataka and Ors., JT<\/a> 1991 (1)\nSC 216; relied on.\n     2. Any representation of the detenu against the  order\nof   his detention has to be considered and decided  by\t the\ndetaining   authority,\tthe  requirement  of  its   separate\nconsideration  by  the\tAdvisory  Board being an  additional\nrequirement implied by reading together clauses (4) and\t (5)\nof Article 22, even though express mention in Article  22(5)\nis  only of the detaining authority. The order of  detention\nis  by the detaining authority and so also the order of\t its\nrevocation  of the representation is accepted, the  Advisory\nBoard's\t role  being merely advisory in nature\twithout\t the\npower  to make any order itself. It is not as if  there\t are\ntwo separate and distinct provisions for  representation  to\ntwo  different authorities viz., the detaining authority and\nthe Advisory Board,  both having independent power to act on\nits own. (427G-H; 428A-B]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    423\n     3.\t It  being settled that this dual  obligation  flows\nfrom  Art.  22(5) when only one representation is  made\t and\naddressed to the detaining authority, there is no reason  to\nhold  that  the\t detaining authority  is  relieved  of\tthis\nobligation merely because the representation  is   addressed\nto    the  Advisory  Board   instead   of   the\t   detaining\nauthority   and\t  submitted  to\t the Advisory  Board  during\npendency  of the reference before it. So long as there is  a\nrepresentation\tmade  by the detenu  against  the  order  of\ndetention,  the dual obligation under Article  22(5)  arises\nirrespective  of  the  fact whether  the  representation  is\naddressed  to  the detaining  authority or to  the  Advisory\nBoard  or to both. The mode of address is only a  matter  of\nform  which  cannot  whittle down  the\trequirement  of\t the\nConstitutional\tmandate in Article 22(5) enacted as  one  of\nthe    safeguards  provided  to\t the  detenu   in  case\t  of\npreventive detention. [428B-El\n    4.\tIn the instant case, there has been a breach by\t the\nCentral\t Government of its duty under Article 22(5)  of\t the\nConstitution  to  consider and decide\tthe   representation\nindependently  of  the\tAdvisory Board's opinion. The  order\nof  detention  dated 25.1.1990 as well as the  order   dated\n24.4.1990   of\tits  confirmation  passed  by  the   Central\nGovernment are quashed. [428F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.)  No.\t1218
\nof 1990.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under   Article  32  of  the  Constitution   of\tIndia).
\n     John Joseph and T.G.N. Nair for the Petitioner.
\n     A.D.  Giri,  Solicitor General,  Ashok  Bhan,   Ms.  A.
\nSubhashini and T.T. Kunhikannan for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VERMA  J.\tThis writ petition under Article 32  of\t the
\nConstitution  of India is by the mother of the detenu\tNoor
\nalias  Babu  to quash the detention order  F.  No.  801\/1\/90
\nPITNDPS\t  dated\t  25.1.1990  passed under Section 3  of\t the
\nPrevention   of\t Illicit  Traffic  in  Narcotic\t Drugs\t and
\nPsychotropic  Substances  Act,\t1988  (in  short   ‘PIT’NDPS
\nAct’)\tand  the  order of confirmation\t F.   No.   801\/1\/90
\nPITNDPS\t  dated\t 24.4.1990 ‘passed under Section  9(f)\tread
\nwith  Section  10(2)  of the PITNDPS  Act,  by\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  directing  detention  of the   detenu    for   a
\nperiod\tof  two yeare w.e.f. 30.1.1990.\t The  only  argument
\nadvanced  in support of this writ petition is infraction  of
\nArticle 22(5) of the Con-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t    424<\/span><\/p>\n
stitution of India. The facts material for the point  raised
\nare stated hereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     The  detenu  was  arrested from his  family  estate  at
\nKochuveetil  House,  Kuthugal,\tUdumpanchola  Taluk,  Idikki
\nDistrict, Kerala on 19.10-1989 on the accusation that he and
\nhis brothers were involved in extensive illicit\t cultivation
\nof  ganja  plants  (Cannabis Sativa)  in  violation  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tNarcotic Drugs and  Psychotropic  Substances
\nAct, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’), He was produced before\t the
\nJudicial  Magistrate who rejected his bail application.\t The
\nSessions  Judge also rejected the bail application once\t but
\nlate,  granted conditional bail. Thereafter,  the  detention
\norder\tdated  25.1.1990  was  served  on  the\tdetenu\t  on
\n30.1.1990.   It\t  was  stated  therein\tthat   even   though
\nprosecution  of the detenu was likely to be initiated  under
\nthe  NDPS Act, there was likelihood of the detenu  indulging
\nin  cultivation and production of narcotic drugs (ganja)  on
\nthe detenu being released on bail on account of which  there
\nwas  compelling\t necessity to detain him under\tthe  PITNDPS
\nAct.  The  detenu was informed that he had a right  to\tmake
\nrepresentation\t to   the   detaining\tauthority,   Central
\nGovernment  and\t the  Central  Advisory\t Board\tagainst\t the
\ndetention  order. The mode of address of the  representation
\nto the Central Government and the Central Advisory Board was
\nalso indicated in the detention order along with the grounds
\nof  detention  in  accordance  with  Article  22(5)  of\t the
\nConstitution of India. The detenu’s case was referred by the
\nCentral\t  Government  to  the  Central\tAdvisory  Board\t  on
\n2.3.1990.  During  pendency  of\t the  reference\t before\t the
\nAdvisory  Board,  the  detenu  made  his  representation  on
\n24.3.1990  and\taddressed  it to  the  Advisory\t Board.\t The
\nAdvisory  Board\t considered the reference  relating  to\t the
\ndetenu made by the Central Government and also the  detenu’s
\nrepresentation submitted to it. The Advisory Board, gave the
\nopinion\t that  there  was sufficient cause  to\tjustify\t his
\npreventive  detention. The Central Government then made\t the
\norder dated 24.4.1990 confirming his detention and  directed
\nthat the detenu Noor alias Babu be detained for a period  of
\ntwo years w.e.f. 30.1.1990.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is admitted that the Advisory Board considered\t the
\ndetenu’s  representation before sending its opinion  to\t the
\nCentral\t Government along with the entire  record  including
\nthe  representation  submitted\tby the detenu.\tIt  is\talso
\nadmitted  that\tthe  Central Government made  the  order  of
\nconfirmation  dated 24.4.1990 on receipt of the\t opinion  of
\nthe   Advisory\t Board,\t but  there   was   no\t independent
\nconsideration of the detenu’s representation by the  Central
\nGovernment  at\tany  time. In  the  counter-affidavit  filed
\ninitially by Shri A.K. Roy, Under Secretary to
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       425<\/span>
\nthe  Government of India, this fact was not  clearly  stated
\nand,  therefore, we directed an additional affidavit  to  be
\nfiled.\tIn the additional affidavit filed by Shri A.K.\tRoy,
\nit has not been disputed that the Central Government did not
\nat   any   time\t  consider   independently    the   detenu’s
\nrepresentation addressed to and given to the Advisory Board.
\nIn  the\t additional  affidavit, the  stand  of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment    in   this\t behalf\t has   been   stated   thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…… Since the detenu  in the present case\t has
\n\t not   made  any  representation  to   the   Central
\n\t Government, the assertion in para 2 of the  grounds
\n\t of petition that no opportunity was afforded by the
\n\t Central Government to the said detenu is vehemently
\n\t denied.   The\tquestion  of  consideration   of   a
\n\t representation\t and  providing\t of  an\t opportunity
\n\t would only arise when a representation is duly made
\n\t to the Central Government.”\n<\/p>\n
     On the above facts, the question is: Whether there\t has
\nbeen any infraction of the guarantee under Article 22(5)  of
\nthe  Constitution  as  a  result  of  Central\tGovernment’s
\nomission to consider the detenu’s representation independent
\nof  its\t consideration by the Advisory\tBoard?\tThe  Central
\nGovernment’s stand is that the detenu’s representation being
\naddressed to the Advisory Board to which  it  was  submitted
\nduring pendency of the reference before the Advisory  Board,
\nthere  was no obligation on the Central Government  also  to
\nconsider   the same independently since\t the  representation
\nwas not addressed to the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     The  Constitutional  mandate  in  Article\t 22(5)\t was
\nconsidered recently by a Constitution Bench in K.M.  Abdulla
\nKunhi\tand  B.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India  and  Ors.,
\nState  of  Karnataka  and Ors., JT<\/a> 1991 (1) SC 216, in\tview
\nof  some  conflict  in\tearlier\t decisions  of\tthis   Court
\nregarding  the detaining authority’s obligation to  consider
\nthe   detenu’s\t representation\t  independently\t  of\t the
\nAdvisory      Board’s duty in this behalf. The\tConstitution
\nBench held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is now beyond the pale of controversy that the
\n\t  constitutional   right  to  make    representation
\n\t  under\t  clause  (5)  of Article  22  by  necessary
\n\t  implication guarantees the constitutional right to
\n\t  a  proper  consideration  of\tthe  representation.
\n\t  Secondly,  the  obligation of\t the  Government  to
\n\t  afford  to  the  detenu  an  opportunity  to\tmake
\n\t  representation  is distinct from the\tGovernment’s
\n\t  obligation to refer the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       426<\/span>
\n\t  case\tof detenu  along with the representation  to
\n\t  the  Advisory\t Board\tto enable  it  to  form\t its
\n\t  opinion and send a report to the Government. It is
\n\t  implicit in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 that
\n\t  the  Government  while  discharging  its  duty  to
\n\t  consider  the representation, cannot\tdepend\tupon
\n\t  the views of the Board on such representation.  It
\n\t  has  to  consider the representation\ton  its\t own
\n\t  without  being influenced by any such view of\t the
\n\t  Board.   The\tobligation  of\tthe  Government\t  to
\n\t  consider the representation is different from\t the
\n\t  obligation   of   the\t Board\t to   consider\t the
\n\t  representation   at  the  time  of   hearing\t the
\n\t  references.\t The   Government   considers\t the
\n\t  representation  to ascertain\tessentially  whether
\n\t  the  order is in conformity with the\tpower  under
\n\t  the  law. The Board, on the other hand,  considers
\n\t  the representation and the case of the detenu\t  to
\n\t  examine whether there is sufficient case (sic) for
\n\t  detention.  The consideration by the Board  is  an
\n\t  additional  safeguard\t and not  a  substitute\t for
\n\t  consideration\t  of  the  representation   by\t the
\n\t  Government.  The right to have the  representation
\n\t  considered  by the Government, is  safeguarded  by
\n\t  cl. (5) of Article 22 and it is independent of the
\n\t  consideration\t  of  the  detenu’s  case  and\t his
\n\t  representation by the Advisory Board under cl. (4)
\n\t  of  Art.  22 read with Section 8(c)  of  the\tAct.
\n\t  (See:\t Sk.  Abdul Karim & Ors. v.  State  of\tWest
\n\t  Bengal,<\/a>   [\t1969]  1  SCC  433;   Pankaj   Kumar
\n\t  Chakrabarty  &  Ors.\tv.  State  of  West  Bengal,<\/a>
\n\t  [1970]1  SCR\t543;  Shayamal\tChakraborty  v.\t The
\n\t  Commissioner of Police Calcutta and Anr.,<\/a> [  1969]
\n\t  2  SCC  426; B. Sundar Rao and Ors.  v.  State  of
\n\t  Orissa,<\/a> [ 1972] 3 SCC 1 1; John Martin v. State of
\n\t  West Bengal,<\/a> [1975] 3 SCR 2 1 1; S. K. Sekawat  v.
\n\t  Stale\t of  West  Bengal,<\/a> [1975]   2  SCR  161\t and
\n\t  Haradhan Saha & Anr. v. State of IVest Bengal\t and
\n\t  Ors.,<\/a> [1975] 1 SCR 778).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(emphasis  supplied)
\n     It is thus clear that the obligation of the  Government
\nto consider the representation is different and in  addition
\nto the obligation of the Board to consider it at the time of
\nhearing\t the  reference\t before giving its  opinion  to\t the
\nGovernment.  Consideration  of\tthe  representation  by\t the
\nGovernment  has\t to  be\t uninfluenced by  the  view  of\t the
\nAdvisory  Board.  In short, the detenu’s right to  have\t the
\nrepresentation\tconsidered by the Government  under  Article
\n22(5)  is independent of the consideration of  the  detenu’s
\ncase and his representation by the Advi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       427<\/span><\/p>\n
sory Board. This position in law is also not disputed before
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Solicitor General, however, contended\tthat
\nin  the present case there being no representation addressed
\nto the\tCentral Government,  the  only\trepresentation\tmade
\nby   the   detenu   being addressed to\tthe  Advisory  Board
\nduring\tpendency  of  the  reference, there was in  fact  no
\nrepresentation\tof  the detenu\tgiving rise to\tthe  Central
\nGovernment’s   obligation  to  consider\t the\tsame.\t The
\nquestion is: Whether this contention can be accepted in\t the
\nface   of  the\tclear  mandate\tin  Article  22(5)  of\t the
\nConstitution?\n<\/p>\n
     It\t  is   undisputed  that\t if  there   be\t  only\t one
\nrepresentation\tby  the detenu\taddressed to  the  detaining
\nauthority,  the\t obligation  arises under Article  22(5)  of
\nits consideration by the detaining  authority independent of
\nthe  opinion  of  the  Advisory Board  in  addition  to\t its
\nconsideration  by  the\tAdvisory  Board\t while\tgiving\t its
\nopinion.  In other words, one representation of the   detenu
\naddressed only to the Central Government and not also to the
\nAdvisory  Board\t does  not  dispense with the requirement of
\nits consideration also by the Advisory Board. The  question,
\ntherefore,   is:   Whether  one\t of   the   requirement\t  of
\nconsideration  by  Government  is dispensed  with  when\t the
\ndetenu’s   representation instead of being addressed to\t the
\nGovernment  or also to the Government is addressed  only  to
\nthe  Advisory  Board  and submitted to\tthe  Advisory  Board
\ninstead\t of  the  Government?  On  principle,  we  find\t  it
\ndifficult   to\t uphold\t the  teamed   Solicitor   General’s
\ncontention  which   would reduce the duty of  the  detaining
\nauthority from one of substance to mere form. The nature  of
\nduty imposed on the detaining authority under Article  22(5)
\nin  the\t context of the extraordinary  power  of  preventive
\ndetention  is sufficient to indicate that strict  compliance
\nis necessary to justify interference with personal  liberty.
\nIt  is more so since the liberty involved is of a person  in
\ndetention  and not of a free  agent. Article 22(5) casts  an
\nimportant duty on the detaining authority to communicate the
\ngrounds\t of  detention\tto the detenu  at  the\tearliest  to
\nafford\t him   the   earliest  opportunity   of\t  making   a
\nrepresentation against the detention order which implies the
\nduty to consider and decide the representation when made, as
\nsoon  as  possible.  Article 22(5) speaks  of  the  detenu’s
\n‘representation\t  against  the\torder’,\t and   imposes\t the
\nobligation   on\t  the\tdetaining   authority.\t Thus,\t any
\nrepresentation\tof  the\t detenu\t against the  order  of\t his
\ndetention has to be considered and decided by the  detaining
\nauthority, the requirement of its separate consideration  by
\nthe  Advisory  Board   being   an   additional\t requirement
\nimplied\t by reading together clauses (4) and (5) of  Article
\n22, even though express mention in Article 22(5) is only  of
\nthe detain
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       428<\/span>
\ning  authority. Moreover, the order of detention is  by\t the
\ndetaining authority and so also the order of its  revocation
\nif the representation is accepted, the Advisory Board’s role
\nbeing  merely advisory in nature without the power  to\tmake
\nany order itself. It is not as if there are two separate and
\ndistinct  provisions  for representation  to  two  different
\nauthorities  viz. the detaining authority and  the  Advisory
\nBoard, both having independent power to act on its own.\n<\/p>\n
     It being settled that the aforesaid dual obligation  of
\nconsideration of the detenu’s representation by the Advisory
\nBoard  and  independently by the detaining  authority  flows
\nfrom  Article  22(5) when only one  representation  is\tmade
\naddressed to the detaining authority, there is no reason  to
\nhold  that  the\t detaining authority  is  relieved  of\tthis
\nobligation merely because the representation is addressed to
\nthe  Advisory Board instead of the detaining  authority\t and
\nsubmitted  to  the  Advisory Board during  pendency  of\t the
\nreference  before it. It is difficult to spell out  such  an
\ninference  from the contents of Article 22(5) in support  of
\nthe  contention\t of  the  learned  Solicitor  General.\t The
\ncontents  of  Article 22(5) as well as the  nature  of\tduty
\nimposed thereby on the detaining authority support the\tview
\nthat  so  long\tas there is a  representation  made  by\t the
\ndetenu\t against the order of detention, the aforesaid\tdual
\nobligation  under Article 22(5) arises irrespective  of\t the
\nfact   whether\tthe  representation  is\t addressed  to\t the
\ndetaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to both. The
\nmode  of  address  is only a matter  of\t form  which  cannot
\nwhittle\t down the requirement of the Constitutional  mandate
\nin  Article 22(5) enacted as one of the safeguards  provided
\nto the detenu in case of preventive detention.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t are, therefore, unable to accept the only  argument
\nadvanced  by  the learned Solicitor General to\tsupport\t the
\ndetention. On this conclusion, it is not disputed that there
\nhas  been  a breach by the Central Government  of  its\tduty
\nunder Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to consider
\nand decide the representation independently of the  Advisory
\nBoard’s\t opinion. The order of detention dated 25.1.1990  as
\nwell as the order dated 24.4.1990 of its confirmation passed
\nby  the\t Central Government are,  therefore,  quashed.\tThis
\nshall not, however, affect the detenu’s prosecution for\t the
\nalleged\t offence  and it shall also not be  construed  as  a
\ndirection  to  release\thim in case he is in  custody  as  a
\nresult\tof  refusal of bail. The writ petition\tis  allowed,
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t   Petition allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       429<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1090, 1991 SCR (1) 421 Author: J S Verma Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) PETITIONER: SMT.GRACY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/02\/1991 BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) […]<\/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-229574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T13:58:06+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T13:58:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\"},\"wordCount\":2217,\"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\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\",\"name\":\"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T13:58:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T13:58:06+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991","datePublished":"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T13:58:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991"},"wordCount":2217,"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\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991","name":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T13:58:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-gracy-vs-state-of-kerala-and-anr-on-15-february-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Gracy vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 15 February, 1991"}]},{"@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\/229574","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=229574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}