{"id":233243,"date":"1998-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998"},"modified":"2018-04-09T04:19:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-08T22:49:37","slug":"all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","title":{"rendered":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2000 ACJ 1006, 1999 IAD Delhi 100, AIR 1999 Delhi 120, 77 (1999) DLT 578, 1999 (48) DRJ 453<\/div>\n
Bench: A D Singh, M Mudgal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1. On  December  23,  1997, Anshu Sharma, a  student  of  M.C.D.  Primary School, Mahavir Enclave, Dabri, New Delhi, aged about 7 years, was  crushed to  death by a vehicle while crossing the road in front of the  school.  He had gone outside the school during school hours to fetch drinking water for himself  as  potable hygienic water was not available in the  school.  With these allegations the instant public interest writ petition has been  filed by  All India Lawyers Union, a voluntary organisation, for  various  directions.\n<\/p>\n
2.   To  meet  the allegations two counter-affidavits have  been  filed  on behalf  of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. These affidavits  have  been affirmed  by Shri Om Prakash Assistant Education Officer,  Nazafgarh  Zone, and Shri T.C. Arora, Deputy Education Officer. While not denying the  accident and the fact that the child had gone outside the school during  school hours,  it is asserted that the drinking water was freely available in  the affidavits  filed  on  February 2, 1998 and September 1, 1998  by  Shri  Om Prakash and Shri T.C. Arora, respectively, are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
     “It  is  submitted  that there is no shortage  of  water  in  the school.  Therefore,  there  was absolutely no  question  for  the school children to go outside the School for drinking water. What is most important is the fact that there is neither any water tap nor  any other source of drinking water near the school or on  the highway as alleged in the petition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   (Affidavit of Shri Om Prakash)<\/p>\n
     “Contents  of para 6 is (are) not denied to the extent  that  (a) school  boy  of seven years old was crushed to death  by  a  four wheeler  tempo  on the fateful day i.e. 23.12.1997. Rest  of  the averments in this para are wrong and denied. It is submitted that there is no shortage of water in the school and therefore,  there was absolutely no question for the school children to go  outside the school for drinking water….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   (Affidavit of Shri T.C. Arora)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.   The  above averments in the counter-affidavits clearly contradict  the note  of the Commissioner dated January 28, 1998. A perusal of the note  of the Commissioner reveals that the same is based on the preliminary  enquiry report made by the Additional Director (Vigilance), dated January 22, 1998. It  appears from the note that the tragedy could have been averted if  adequate drinking water facility was available in the school. The note in this regard reads as follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “6. Shri Chauhan has also admitted that he had started the  process of providing adequate water supply to the school since  June,      97  but till 23.12.97 no tangible progress in the same was  made. It  is  understood that soon after the incident 2 hand  pump  had been  made  operative within a couple of days. Had this  kind  of promptness been shown earlier, the tragedy might have been averted. Accordingly, I do not find any reason as to why only  written warnig be given to Shri V.S. Chauhan, J.E. (Works). RDA for major penalty be initiate against him as well as Head Master Shri Attar Singh  Jain who showed utter lack of responsibility in  discharge of his duties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.   Therefore,  it is apparent that though the process for providing  adequate  water  supply to the school was started in June  1997,  no  tangible progress  was  made in this direction till December 23, 1997. It  was  only after the incident that two hand pumps had been made operative. Thus, it is clear  that  an attempt has been made by the affiants to conceal  the  real reason  why  the  child Anshu Sharma went outside the  school  on  December 23,1997 during school hours. We are constrained to observe that the affidavits  filed by Shri Om Prakash, Assistant Education Officer and  Shri  T.C. Arora, Deputy Education Officer, have taken liberties the with truth.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   The  importance of provision of drinking water in a school  cannot  be over  emphasised. Children cannot be expected to remain in school for  long hours  without  water. They can not be made to go out side the  school,  on busy and hazardous roads, in search of water. Water sustains life. To  deny water is to deny adequate sustenance. The State, under Article 39(f) of the Constitution,  is required to secure opportunities and facilities to  children to develop in a healthy manner. When even water cannot be provided  to children in a school, the question of their development in a healthy manner would  be  a far cry. Provision for wholesome potable water in  schools  is part  of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.  All schools must provide clean drinking water to the children.\n<\/p>\n
6.   It is important to note that the respondent have not disputed that the child went outside the school during the school hours. It follows that  the child  was not prevented from leaving the school to quench his thrust.  The school  authorities  were  under  a duty of care  which  has  been  clearly breached by them. When the parents leave the children in school they are in the custody of the school authorities. They are required to take such  care of their pupils as would be taken by a careful and prudent parent. The fact that the child could move out of the school during, school hours shows that either  the  gate  was unmanned or the security at the gate  was  lax.  The school authorities owe a duty to provide adequate security to the  children to  prevent chances of injury to them. That duty has not been performed  by the  authorities.  But for their negligence in discharge of the  duty,  the child would have been alive. In the circumstance, therefore, respondent No. 5,  which runs the school is liable o pay compensation to the  parents  of the  deceased  child.  We are conscious of the fact that money  is  not  an adequate compensation for life. It cannot wipe the tears of the parents  of the deceased child but there is also no other mode to compensate them.\n<\/p>\n
7.   We are also conscious of the fact that we are awarding compensation to the parents of Anshu Sharma in a writ petition. This is permissible in law. In  D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, , Dr. Justice  A.S. Anand (as his Lordship then was) held as under :-\n<\/p>\n
     “43.  Till about two decades ago the liability of the  Government for tortuous act of its public servants was generally limited and the person affected could enforce his right in tort by filling  a civil suit and there again the defense of sovereign immunity  was allowed  to have its play. For the violation of  the  fundamental right to life of the basic human rights, however, this Court  has taken  the  view that the defense of sovereign  immunity  is  not available to the State for the tortuous acts of the public  servants  and for the established violation of the rights  guaranteed by  Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In  Nilabati  Behera Vs.  State  the decision of this Court in  Kasturilal  Ralia  Ram Jain Vs. State of U.P.   wherein the plea of sovereign immunity had been upheld in a  case of vicarious liability of the State for the tort committed by its employees was explained thus : (SCC p. 761, para 14).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “In  this context, it is sufficient to say that the  decision  of this Court in Kasturilal upholding the State’s plea of  sovereign immunity  for  tortuous acts of its servants is confined  to  the sphere  of liability in tort, which is distinct from the  State’s liability  for contravention of fundamental rights to  which  the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no application in the  constitutional  scheme, and is no defense to the constitutional  remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution which enables award of  compensation for contravention of fundamental  rights,  where the  only  practicable  mode of enforcement  of  the  fundamental rights  can  be the award of compensation. The decision  of  this Court  in Rudul Shah  and others in  that  line relate to award of compensation for contravention of  fundamental rights, in the constitutional remedy under Articles 32 and 226 of      the  Constitution. On the other hand, Kasturilal related  to  the value  of goods seized and not returned to the owner due  to  the fault of government servants, the claim being of damages for  the tort  of conversion under the ordinary process, and not  a  claim for  compensation for violation of fundamental rights  Kasturilal is, therefore, inapplicable this context and distinguishable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  claim  in public law for compensation  for  unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty, the protection  of a claim based on strict liability and is an addition  to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous  acts of the public servants. Public law proceedings serve a  different purpose  than the private law proceedings. Award of  compensation for  established infringement of the indefeasible rights  guaranteed  under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy  available in  public  law since the purpose of public law is  not  only  to civilise  public power but also to assure the citizens that  they live  under  a legal system wherein their  rights  and  interests shall  be protected and preserved. Grant of compensation in  proceedings  under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution  of India  for  the established violation of the  fundamental  rights guaranteed  under Article 21, is an exercise of the courts  under the  public  law jurisdiction for penalising  the  wrongdoer  and fixing  the  liability for the public wrong on  the  State  which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the  fundamental rights of the citizen.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits the role of the courts too much, as the  protector  and custodian of the indefeasible rights  of  the citizens.  The courts have the obligation to satisfy  the  social aspirations  of the citizens because the courts and the  law  are for  the people and expected to respond to their  aspirations.  A court  of  law cannot close its consciousness  and  aliveness  to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim – civil action for damages  is  a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary  compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible  right to life of the citizen is, therefore,  useful and  at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply  balm  to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who  may have been the breadwinner of the family.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Nilabati Behera case, it was held : (SCC pp. 767-68, para 32)<\/p>\n
     “Adverting  to  the grant of relief to the heirs of a  victim  of custodial  death  for the infraction or invasion  of  his  rights guaranteed  under Article 21 of the Constitution of  India,it  is not  always  enough to relegate him to the ordinary remedy  of  a civil suit to claim damages for the tortuous act of the State  as that  remedy in private law indeed is available to the  aggrieved party.  The citizen complaining of the infringement of the  indefeasible  right  under Article 21 of the Constitution  cannot  be told that for the established violation of the fundamental  right to  life, he cannot get any relief under the public law  proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore,  to  evolve  `new tools’ to give relief in  public  law  by moulding  it according to the situation with a view  to  preserve and  protect the Rule of Law. While concluding his  first  Hamlyn Lecture  in  1949 under the title `Freedom under  the  Law’  Lord Denning in his own style warned:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “No  one can suppose that the executive will never be  guilty  of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that  they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do: and will not do  things  that  they ought to do. But if and  when  wrongs  are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy ? Our  procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient out procedure  for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure  of  mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case  are  not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must  be replaced  by new and up-to-date machinery, by  declarations,  injunctions  and actions for negligence… This is not the task  of Parliament.  The court must do this. Of all the great tasks  that lie ahead this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused they  lead to  a totalitarian state. None such must ever be allowed in  this country.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   Thus,  there is clear authority for grant of compensation to  the  affected party on account of breach of Article 21 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The Headmaster of the School, who is under suspension pending  enquiry into the incident, at the last hearing told us about the communication sent to  the department in respect of lack of provision of water which  remained unattended leading to the unfortunate incident. Even if the Headmaster  had not  asked for this facility it was the duty of the M.C.D. to  ensure  that this  very essential facility was available in the school. We  are  already hearing other connected writ petitions wherein basic facilities lacking  in Municipal Schools have been highlighted. We hope and trust that the enquiry underway will also find out who was reponsible for sitting on the  request, if  any, for providing water to the school which is the root cause of  this tragedy. Irrespective of any such request the M.C.D. was in any event bound to  provide drinking water in the school. This public duty was owed by  the M.C.D.  and its concerned officials to all the students of the school.  The duty of care is flagrantly breached n two counts. (a) not providing drinking water, and (b) not providing adequate security for children. The negligence  is further compounded by the cavaller disregard for truth as  demonstrated  by the affidavits filed by the M.C.D. We hope and trust  that  the officials of the culpable department who are responsible for the above said poses will be made accountable.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Having  regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as  revealed from the report of the Commissioner, direct that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid by the respondent No. 5 to the parents of the deceased child.  This direction  will not prejudice the right of the parents of the  deceased  to take  such action against persons responsible for the incident, as  may  be permissible in law. This order will not preclude respondent No. 5 in  holding  an enquiry against the erring officials. The payment shall be made  by the respondent No.5 to the parents of the deceased child within four weeks. It is, however, clarified that the said amount awarded in these proceedings in  consonance  with  the law laid down by the Supreme  Court  in  Nilabati Behera  (Smt.)  alias Lalita Behera (through the Supreme  Court  Legal  Aid Committee)  Vs. State of Orissa and others, ,  would  be taken  into  account while awarding compensation in any  other  proceedings initiated\/instituted  on behalf of the family of the deceased  against  respondent No. 5 and its officials.\n<\/p>\n
11.  List the writ petition for further directions on November 30, 1998.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 Equivalent citations: 2000 ACJ 1006, 1999 IAD Delhi 100, AIR 1999 Delhi 120, 77 (1999) DLT 578, 1999 (48) DRJ 453 Bench: A D Singh, M Mudgal JUDGMENT 1. On December 23, 1997, Anshu Sharma, a student of […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAll India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - 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\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-08T22:49:37+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T22:49:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\"},\"wordCount\":2582,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\",\"name\":\"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-08T22:49:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - 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\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-08T22:49:37+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998","datePublished":"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T22:49:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998"},"wordCount":2582,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998","name":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-08T22:49:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/all-india-lawyers-union-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-12-november-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All India Lawyers Union vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 November, 1998"}]},{"@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\/233243","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=233243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233243\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}