{"id":234476,"date":"2003-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003"},"modified":"2015-02-22T09:13:56","modified_gmt":"2015-02-22T03:43:56","slug":"smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: R Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, P.Venkatarama Reddi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  9631 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSmt. Anokha\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe State of Rajasthan & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nRUMA PAL & P.VENKATARAMA REDDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7022 of 2003]<\/p>\n
RUMA PAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tBaby Alka Singh is the daughter of Smt. Anokha and
\nSumer Singh Yadav.  Sumer Singh Yadav was a taxi driver.
\nThe Respondents no.2 and 3 are Italian nationals.  During their
\nfrequent visits to India either singly or jointly for the last 20
\nyears, they used Sumer Singh’s taxi to tour the country.  About
\nthree years ago, Sumer Singh died as a result of an accident
\nwhich took place after he had dropped the respondents no.2
\nand 3 at their destination.  Sumer Singh and Anokha, the
\nappellant before us, had six children, five of whom were girls.
\nAfter Sumer Singh’s death, the respondents no.2 and 3 who at
\nthat point of time had no children of their own wanted to adopt
\none of the girls viz., Baby Alka.  Smt. Anokha agreed.\n<\/p>\n
In January 2001, a petition was filed by the respondents
\nno.2 and 3 under Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and
\nWards Act, 1890 in the Court of District Judge, Alwar in which it
\nwas stated inter alia that they were issue-less, that they were
\nresponsible citizens, that they have their own business and
\nhave a very good income, that they own moveable and
\nimmovable properties in Italy, that they would love and look
\nafter the well being of Baby Alka and provide her the best
\neducation and milieu at Italy.  In support of their application, the
\nrespondents No.2 and 3 filed the following material before the
\nDistrict Judge:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tA certificate of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of
\nVenice to the effect that there were no criminal
\nproceedings pending against either of them;\n<\/p>\n
2.\tReport of the Family Advisory Bureau of the local
\nHealth Office consequent upon investigation made
\ngiving the family background of the respondents,
\nthe present financial status, their vocation, their
\nsocial status and their personality.  The conclusion
\nin the report was that the couple had been married
\nsince 1986 and they always wished to have a
\nnatural child and another adopted one.  They had till
\nthe date of the report been unsuccessful in having a
\nchild of their own;\n<\/p>\n
3.\tA certificate of the psychologist and a social worker
\nrelating to their residential accommodation, the
\nmarital harmony between the respondents no.2 and
\n3 and their parental competency;\n<\/p>\n
4.\tA certificate of citizenship issued by the municipal
\nauthorities;\n<\/p>\n
5.\tA decree of the Juvenile Court of Venice on the
\nbasis of the material collected declaring that the
\ncouple was “well-balanced, mature, cohesive,
\nconscious of the problems concerning adoption”
\nand that they were “suitable to adopt a minor of
\nforeign nationality”;\n<\/p>\n
6.\tIncome Tax records certifying solvency;\n<\/p>\n
7.\tA certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce,
\nIndustry and Agriculture, Venice relating to the
\nbusiness carried on by respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The District Judge issued notices to the Social Welfare
\nDepartment of the State of Rajasthan as well as to the
\nappellant and also directed notices to be published in the local
\nnewspapers of the proposed appointment of the respondents
\nno.2 and 3 as the guardians of Baby Alka.  The notices were
\nduly published.  The appellant filed an affidavit before the
\nDistrict Judge in which she stated that she had known the
\nrespondents no.2 and 3 for the last 20 years and she had no
\nobjection if they were appointed guardians of her baby
\ndaughter.  A report was also filed on behalf of the Dy. Collector,
\nSocial Welfare Department, Alwar on 26.7.2001 recommending
\nthat the child could be given in adoption.  The report was
\nsubmitted after investigating into the financial status of the late
\nSumer Singh’s family and ascertaining the wishes of the
\nappellant Anokha.  Both the respondents also appeared before
\nthe District Judge and reiterated on oath that they would look
\nafter the child and were competent to do so physically,
\nfinancially and emotionally.\n<\/p>\n
The District Judge however was of the view that since the
\nadoption was sought to be effected by a foreign couple, the
\nGuidelines prescribed for ‘Adoption of Indian Children’ issued
\nby the Ministry of Welfare, Government of India (referred to
\nhereafter as ‘the Guidelines’) would have to be followed.  The
\nGuidelines require that child must be sponsored by a Social or
\nChild Welfare Agency recognized or licensed by the
\nGovernment of the country in which the foreigner is the
\nresident.  It was, therefore, held that unless an authorised
\nagency in Italy submitted an enquiry report and a ‘No Objection
\nCertificate’ was issued by the Ministry of Welfare, Government
\nof India, no application for appointment of foreigners as
\nguardians could be presented to the Court.  The District Judge
\nheld that the Guidelines would apply irrespective of whether the
\nchild’s biological parents were alive or not.\n<\/p>\n
On the rejection of the application, an appeal was
\npreferred by the appellant to the High Court.  The High Court
\nwas also of the view that the Guidelines applied to this case.  It,
\ntherefore, directed the respondents no.2 and 3 to make a fresh
\napplication for being appointed guardians after the same was
\nsponsored by the Social or Child Welfare Society recognised or
\nlicensed by the Government of Italy.  In addition, the High Court
\nsaid that the respondents no.2 and 3 would have to get a No
\nObjection Certificate from the Central Adoption Resource
\nAgency (CARA).  In the event they did not obtain such
\ncertificate, their application for guardianship would not be
\nentertained.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has approached this Court under Article
\n136 of the Constitution.  She has reiterated the stand taken by
\nher before the High Court and the District Judge, namely, that
\nthe Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Welfare relating to the
\nadoption of Indian Children did not apply in the case of adoption
\nof children living with their biological parents and that the
\nguidelines only applied to cases where the child was destitute
\nor abandoned or living in Social or Child Welfare Centres.  This
\nCourt issued notices to the respondents on 28th April, 2003.  A
\ncounter affidavit was filed by the State opposing the Special
\nLeave Petition.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the High Court and the District Judge erred in
\nnot considering the material produced by respondents no. 2
\nand 3 in support of their application and in rejecting the
\napplication under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 solely on
\nthe basis of the guidelines.   The background in which the
\nguidelines were issued was a number of decisions of this Court,
\nthe first of which is Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India<\/a>
\n[AIR 1984 SC 469 : (1984) 2 SCC 244].  This is borne out from
\nthe stated object of the guidelines as set out in paragraph 1.1.
\nthereof which “is to provide a sound basis for adoption within
\nthe frame work of the norms and principles laid down by the
\nSupreme Court of India in the series of judgments delivered in
\nL.K. Pandey V. Union of India and Others between 1984 and
\n1991”.  The original decision of the Court was taken on the
\nbasis of a letter written by one Laxmi Kant Pandey complaining
\nof mal-practices indulged in by social organisations and
\nvoluntary agencies engaged in the work of offering Indian
\nchildren in adoption to foreign parents.  The judgment has
\nconsidered the problem at great length after affidavits were filed
\nnot only by the Indian Council of Social Welfare but also by
\nForeign Organisations and Indian Organisations which were
\nengaged in offering and placing Indian children for adoption by
\nforeign parents.  The decision has referred to three classes of
\nchildren: (i) children who are orphaned and destitute or whose
\nbiological parents cannot be traced; (ii) children whose
\nbiological parents are traceable but have relinquished or
\nsurrendered them for adoption; and (iii) children living with their
\nbiological parents.  The third category has been expressly
\nexcluded from consideration as far as the decision was
\nconcerned “for in such class of cases, the biological parents
\nwould be the best persons to decide whether to give their child
\nin adoption to foreign parents”1. The reason is obvious.
\nNormally, no parent with whom the child is living would agree to
\ngive a child in adoption unless he or she was satisfied that it
\nwould be in the best interest of the child.  That is the greatest
\nsafeguard.\n<\/p>\n
The directions which have been given in the decision are
\nlimited to the Ist and IInd categories of children with more
\nstringent requirements being laid down in respect of children in
\nthe first category of cases.  As far as adoption of children falling
\nwithin the second category are concerned, the requirements
\nare not so stringent.  All that is required is that2:
\n” they (viz., the biological parents) should be
\nproperly assisted in making a decision about
\nrelinquishing the child for adoption, by the Institution
\nor Centre or Home for Child Care or social or child
\nwelfare agency to which the child is being
\nsurrendered.  Before a decision is taken by the
\nbiological parents to surrender the child for
\nadoption, they should be helped to understand all
\nthe implications of adoption including the possibility
\nof adoption by a foreigner and they should be told
\nspecifically that in case the child is adopted, it would
\nnot be possible for them to have any further contact
\nwith the child.  The biological parents should not be
\nsubjected to any duress in making a decision about
\nrelinquishment and even after they have taken a
\ndecision to relinquish the child for giving in adoption,
\na further period of about three months should be
\nallowed to them to reconsider their decision.  But
\nonce the decision is taken and not reconsidered
\nwithin such further time as may be allowed to them,
\nit must be regarded as irrevocable and the
\nprocedure for giving the child in adoption to a
\nforeigner can then be initiated without any further
\nreference to the biological parents by filing an
\napplication for appointment of the foreigner as
\nguardian of the child.  Thereafter, there can be no
\nquestion of once again consulting the biological
\nparents whether they wish to give the child in
\nadoption or they want to take it back. .”\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid observations only pertain to children who
\nhave been or are sought to be relinquished or surrendered for
\nadoption in general to a placement agency or other institution
\nwhere there is no contact between them and the adoptive
\nparents at all and not to cases where the child is living with
\nhis\/her parent\/parents and is agreed to be given in adoption to
\na particular couple who happen to be foreign.\n<\/p>\n
This decision has been subsequently modified but
\nreaffirmed in several decisions. In all the subsequent cases, the
\nmodification, if any, has pertained to adoptions through
\ninstitutions i.e. the first or second category of children.  {See:
\nLakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India & Anr.<\/a> [1985 (Supp.)
\nSCC 701], Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India<\/a> [(1987) 1
\nSCC 66], Lakshmikant Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.
\n[(1991) 4 SCC 33], Sumanlal Chhotalal Kamdar & Ors. v.
\nAsha Trilokbhai Shah (Miss) & Ors.<\/a> [(1995) 3 SCC 700],
\nKarnataka State Council For Child Welfare & Anr. v. Society
\nof Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent and others<\/a> [1995
\nSupp. (4) SCC 529], Indian Council Social Welfare & Ors. v.
\nState of A.P. & Ors.<\/a> [(1999) 6 SCC 365], Lakshmi Kant
\nPandey v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a> [(2001) 9 SCC 379]}.\n<\/p>\n
The guidelines have formulated various directives as
\ngiven by this Court in the several decisions and do not relate to
\nregulation of the adoption procedure to be followed in respect of
\nthird category of children, namely, children with their biological
\nparents who are sought to be given in adoption to a known
\ncouple as is the situation in this case.  It is only where there is
\nthe impersonalized attention of a placement authority that there
\nis a need to closely monitor the process including obtaining of a
\nno objection certificate from the Central Adoption Resource
\nAgency (CARA), Ministry of Welfare, the sponsorship of the
\nadoption by a recognised national agency and the scrutiny of
\nthe inter-country adoption by a recognised Voluntary
\nCoordinating Agency (VCA).   Indeed CARA has been set up
\nunder the guidelines for the purpose of eliminating the
\nmalpractice indulged in by some unscrupulous placement
\nagencies particularly the trafficking in children.\n<\/p>\n
Under the guidelines, the Home Study Report to be
\nenclosed with an application for adoption must be routed
\nthrough a foreign and enlisted agency which must be an
\nenlisted agency in India with a copy to CARA.  The Home Study
\nReport is required to contain the following particulars:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tSocial Status and family background;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tDescription of Home;\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tStandard of living as it appears in the Home;\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tCurrent relationship between husband and
\nwife;\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tCurrent relationship between the parents and
\nchildren (if any children);\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tDevelopment of already adopted children (if
\nany);\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tCurrent relationship between the couple and
\nthe members of each other’s family;\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tEmployment status of the couple;\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tHealth details such as clinical test, heart
\ncondition, past illness etc. (medical certificate
\netc.);\n<\/p>\n
(j)\tEconomic status of the couple;\n<\/p>\n
(k)\tAccommodation for the child;\n<\/p>\n
(l)\tSchooling facilities;\n<\/p>\n
(m)\tAmenities in the Home;\n<\/p>\n
(n)\tReasons for wanting to adopt an Indian child;\n<\/p>\n
(o)\tAttitude of grand-parents and relatives
\ntowards Adoption;\n<\/p>\n
(p)\tAnticipated plans for the adoptive child;\n<\/p>\n
(q)\tLegal status of the prospective adopting
\nparents.\n<\/p>\n
The report is required to be notarised which must in turn
\nbe attested either by an Officer of the Ministry of External
\nAffairs or an Officer of the Justice or Social Welfare
\nDepartment of the foreign country concerned or by an Officer of
\nthe Indian Embassy or High Commission or Consulate in that
\ncountry.\n<\/p>\n
None of these provisions in the several decisions of this
\nCourt impinge upon the rights and choice of an individual to
\ngive his or her child in adoption to named persons, who may be
\nof foreign origin.  The Court in such cases has to deal with the
\napplication under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
\n1890 and dispose of the same after being satisfied that the
\nchild is being given in adoption voluntarily after being aware of
\nthe implication of adoption viz. that the child would legally
\nbelong to the adoptive parents family, uninduced by any
\nextraneous reasons such as the receipt of money etc; that the
\nadoptive parents have produced evidence in support of their
\nsuitability and finally that the arrangement would be in the best
\ninterest of the child.\n<\/p>\n
In the case before us although the guidelines do not
\napply, the respondents No.2 and 3 had produced evidence
\nwhich fulfilled all the particulars required of a Home Study
\nReport.  The appellant has repeatedly affirmed her closeness to
\nthe respondents no.2 and 3 and her conviction that they would
\nnourish and care for baby Alka as if she was their own.  The
\nrespondents no.2 and 3 have produced sufficient evidence to
\njustify their suitability to be adoptive parents.  There was a
\njudicially directed scrutiny by a local Governmental Agency in
\nVenice.  The enquiry report has resulted in a judgment passed
\nby the Court at Venice, Italy.  That judgment can be accepted
\nby this Court under Section 13 of Code of Civil Procedure,
\nparticularly when the respondents have filed the investigation
\nreport and other material on the basis of which the judgment
\nwas delivered.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances of the case, the decision of the High
\nCourt is set aside and the application of the respondents no.2
\nand 3 filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is
\nallowed.  The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are appointed guardians
\nof the child Alka the daughter of Anokha and late Sumer Singh
\nwith liberty to take her to Italy for the purpose of adopting her in
\naccordance with Italian law.  However, before the child is taken
\nout of the country the following conditions must be complied
\nwith:\n<\/p>\n
1)\tThe respondents No.2 and 3 will file an affidavit
\nbefore the District Court, Alwar with an undertaking
\nto adopt the child within two years and to produce
\nthe child, if so required, till proof of adoption is filed
\nwith the District Court;\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThe respondents No.2 and 3 shall keep in deposit
\nwith the District Court an amount of Rs.50,000\/-
\n(Rupees fifty thousand only) to cover the air fare for
\nthe possible repatriation of the child to India till the
\nchild is legally adopted; the amount shall be kept by
\nthe District Court in a short term fixed deposit with
\nany Nationalised bank and the Fixed Deposit
\nReceipt is to be held to the credit of the minor, Alka.
\nUpon proof of her adoption by the respondents No.
\n2 and 3 the amount deposited shall be forthwith
\nreturned to the said respondents or their duly
\nauthorised representative together with the interest
\naccrued thereon.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tThe respondents No. 2 and 3 must undertake by
\naffidavit filed before the District Court to submit
\nannual reports to the District Court of the child’s
\nwelfare and progress in school with  photographs
\nand to inform the District Court of any change of
\naddress till the child is legally adopted<\/p>\n
The Registry of this Court is directed to send two copies of
\nthis judgment together with two copies of the affidavit of the
\nappellant dated 1st October 2003 and the annexures thereto to
\nthe CARA, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India one set of
\nwhich is to be retained by CARA and the other forwarded by it
\nto the relevant Indian Diplomatic Mission in Italy for their record
\nin the event any follow up action is necessary.
\nThe appeal is allowed and disposed of as above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 Author: R Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, P.Venkatarama Reddi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 9631 of 2003 PETITIONER: Smt. Anokha RESPONDENT: The State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2003 BENCH: RUMA PAL & P.VENKATARAMA REDDI JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-234476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - 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-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-22T03:43:56+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=\"15 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-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T03:43:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2903,\"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-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\",\"name\":\"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T03:43:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - 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-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-22T03:43:56+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T03:43:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003"},"wordCount":2903,"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-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003","name":"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T03:43:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-anokha-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-ors-on-8-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Anokha vs The State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/234476","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=234476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}