{"id":235852,"date":"2010-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-18T07:50:15","modified_gmt":"2015-01-18T02:20:15","slug":"pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 2\/8\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.173 of 2010\n\nPandiyammal\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu\n  Represented by\n  The Secretary to Government of\n\tTamil Nadu\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise\n\tDepartment\n  Fort St. George\n  Chennai 600 009.\n2.The Commissioner of Police\n  Madurai City\n  Madurai\n3.The Superintendent of Prison\n  Madurai Central Prison\n  Madurai District\n4.The Secretary\n  Advisory Board\n  32, Rajaji Salai\n  Singaraveler Maligai\n  Chennai Collectorate\n  Chennai\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n\nHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records\nconnected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in No.03\/BDFGISSV\/2010\ndated 8.2.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body\nand person of the petitioner's son by name Raja @ Chinna Raja, son of Essac,\naged about 28 years, detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and\nset him at liberty forthwith.\n\n!For Petitioner   ...  Mr.R.Alagumani\n^For Respondents  ...  Mr.P.N.Senthur Pandian\n\t\t       Additional Public\n\t\t       Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tThis petition challenges an order of the second respondent made in<br \/>\nNo.03\/BDFGISSV\/2010 dated 8.2.2010, whereby the son of the petitioner by name<br \/>\nRaja @ Chinna Raja was ordered to be detained under Act 14\/82 branding him as a<br \/>\nGoonda.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked<br \/>\ninto all the materials available including the order under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) C5 Karimedu PS Cr.No.243\/09 under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC and (ii)<br \/>\nD2 Sellur PS Cr.No.3342\/09 under Sections 395 read with 397, 506(ii) IPC and<br \/>\n25(1) of Arms Act and 3, 4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and one ground<br \/>\ncase registered by C4 Thilagarthidal PS in Crime No.1903\/2009 under Sections 392<br \/>\nread with 397 and 506(ii) IPC, the detaining authority after scrutiny of all the<br \/>\nmaterials available, recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of<br \/>\nthe detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence<br \/>\nmade the order under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel<br \/>\nwould inter alia urge two grounds as primary grounds by which he made his<br \/>\nsincere attempt of attacking the order.  According to the Counsel, he was<br \/>\nremanded in the second adverse case and in the ground case; that no bail<br \/>\napplication has been filed in either of the cases; but in paragraph 5 of the<br \/>\norder, the detaining authority has stated that there was a real possibility of<br \/>\nthe detenu coming out on bail, and this was without any material, much less<br \/>\ncogent material which the law would require.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Added further the learned Counsel that the petitioner has made a post-<br \/>\ndetention representation on 27.2.2010, to the Advisory Board to have the legal<br \/>\nassistance; that the Advisory Board instead of considering the representation<br \/>\nmade, sent the matter to the Government before affirming the order by the State;<br \/>\nand that the non-consideration of the representation by the Advisory Board would<br \/>\nalso be fatal to the order in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.In order to fortify the contention, the learned Counsel relied on a<br \/>\ndecision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2009) 4 MLJ (CRL) 443<br \/>\n(SUGUMATH KANISH V. STATE OF T.N. AND OTHERS).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.  According to him, it is true that no bail application was filed by<br \/>\nhim before any Court of criminal law in either of the cases; but, at the same<br \/>\ntime, the sponsoring authority has recorded the statement of one Mahendran, the<br \/>\nfriend of the detenu, with whom he was doing such illegal activities in the<br \/>\npast, and he has stated that he met the detenu in prison a few days earlier, and<br \/>\nthe detenu informed him that he is going to move bail in those cases through an<br \/>\nAdvocate, and under the circumstances, the first ground has got to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.As far as the second ground regarding the post-detention representation<br \/>\nfor legal assistance, is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nwould submit that it cannot be made as a matter of right, and hence both the<br \/>\ngrounds have got to be rejected, and the petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.As could be seen from the available materials, the sponsoring authority<br \/>\nplaced its recommendation on the strength of two adverse cases and one ground<br \/>\ncase as referred to above.  It is pertinent to point out that in the second<br \/>\nadverse case and in the ground case, he has not moved bail before any Court of<br \/>\ncriminal law. While the fact stood admitted, the detaining authority in<br \/>\nparagraph 5 of the order under challenge has stated as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;5.I am aware that Tr.Raja @ Chinna Raja, s\/o. Essac, is now in remand in the<br \/>\nground case in C4 Thilagarthidal P.S.Cr.No.1903\/2009 and also the adverse case<br \/>\nin D2 Sellur PS Cr. No.3342\/2009 and he is lodged at the Central Prison, Madurai<br \/>\nand he has not filed bail applications in the above adverse and ground cases.<br \/>\nHowever  I am aware through the statement of Tr. Mahendran, S\/o Sudalai that<br \/>\nTr.Raja @ Chinna Raja is making efforts to file bail applications in the above<br \/>\nsaid ground case and adverse case, before the concerned court. Hence, I am also<br \/>\naware that there is a &#8216;real possibility&#8217; of his coming out on bail by filing<br \/>\nbail application in the above ground case in C4 Thilagarthidal PS<br \/>\nCr.No.1903\/2009 and the adverse case in D2 Sellur PS Cr. No.3342\/2009 by filing<br \/>\nbail applications, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned<br \/>\nCourt or Higher Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The very reading of the above observation would indicate that though<br \/>\nthe authority has got the clear knowledge that no bail application was filed<br \/>\neither in the second adverse case or in the ground case, he has stated that<br \/>\nthere was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Now, the<br \/>\ncontention put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority recorded a statement from one Mahendran, the friend of the<br \/>\ndetenue, to whom it was informed by the detenu when he met him in the prison,<br \/>\nthat the detenu was going to move the Court for bail in those cases through an<br \/>\nAdvocate. The very reading of the statement given by the said Mahendran, would<br \/>\nindicate that the crime numbers and further particulars are given which could<br \/>\nnot have been given by him. This Court is of the considered opinion that this<br \/>\ncannot be a material, much less cogent material, and it cannot be relied upon.<br \/>\nUnder the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be<br \/>\nconsidered to be a cogent material. Hence the contention put forth by the State<br \/>\nhas got to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Equally, it is an admitted position that a post-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation was made by the petitioner to the Advisory Board to have the<br \/>\nlegal assistance on 27.2.2010. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for<br \/>\nthe State would represent that it cannot be made as of right.  It is true that<br \/>\nit is not a matter of right. It is settled proposition of law that it was not a<br \/>\nmatter of right; but, when a representation is made to that effect, a duty is<br \/>\ncast upon the Advisory Board to consider the same and pass suitable orders<br \/>\nthereon. On one occasion, it was considered by the Division Bench of this Court<br \/>\nin a case reported in (2009) 4 MLJ (CRL) 443 (SUGUMATH KANISH V. STATE OF T.N.<br \/>\nAND OTHERS) and held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8.Added circumstances, it is brought to the notice of the Court that after<br \/>\npassing the detention order dated 6.11.2008 and after constitution of the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board, the detenu was directed to appear before the Advisory Board on<br \/>\n7.1.2009.  Accordingly, he appeared and sought for permission to engage a<br \/>\ncounsel to represent him.  It is not in dispute that such a representation was<br \/>\nactually made before the Advisory Board.  On perusal of the order made by the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board, nowhere it is indicated that such a representation was<br \/>\nconsidered.  The question whether the detenu has got a right to have the<br \/>\nassistance of a lawyer before the Advisory Board came up for consideration<br \/>\nbefore the Apex Court on number of occasions.  On one occasion, the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt in Kavitha v. State of Maharashtra and Others (AIR 1981 SC 1641) : (1981)<br \/>\nSCC (Cri) 743 has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Though a detenu has no right under Section 8(e) of the Conservation of Foreign<br \/>\nExchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 to appear through a<br \/>\nlegal practitioner in the proceedings before the Advisory Board, he is entitled<br \/>\nto make a representation for the services of a lawyer to appear before the said<br \/>\nBoard which is under obligation to consider the same dispassionately in the<br \/>\nfacts of a particular case.  The representation made by a detenu for legal<br \/>\nassistance before the Advisory Board, has to be considered not perfunctorily but<br \/>\nwith due application of mind, since in each case of detention, the liberty of an<br \/>\nindividual is involved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It would be quite clear that from the very reading of the decision that the<br \/>\ndetenu is not vested with any right under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act to<br \/>\nappear through his counsel in proceeding before the Advisory Board.  But, he is<br \/>\nentitled to make a representation for the service of a lawyer to appear before<br \/>\nthe Board and the Board is also under obligation to consider the same. In the<br \/>\ninstant case, though the representation was made before the Board to take<br \/>\nassistance of a legal practitioner, nothing is found indicating whether such a<br \/>\nrepresentation was considered by the Board at all.  Under such circumstances,<br \/>\nthe decision of the Apex Court, if applied, would also make the order under<br \/>\nchallenge defective.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.This Court is unable to see any reason to deviate from the earlier<br \/>\ndecision taken by the Court.  Once the submission of a post-detention<br \/>\nrepresentation seeking legal assistance, to the Advisory Board, is an admitted<br \/>\nfact, the Advisory Board should have considered the same and passed orders, but<br \/>\nfailed to do so. Hence both the grounds have got to be applied in favour of the<br \/>\ndetenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the<br \/>\norder of the second respondent.  The detenu is directed to be set at liberty<br \/>\nforthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government of<br \/>\n\tTamil Nadu<br \/>\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise<br \/>\n\tDepartment<br \/>\n  Fort St. George<br \/>\n  Chennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner of Police<br \/>\n  Madurai City<br \/>\n  Madurai\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Superintendent of Prison<br \/>\n  Madurai Central Prison<br \/>\n  Madurai District\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Secretary<br \/>\n  Advisory Board<br \/>\n  32, Rajaji Salai<br \/>\n  Singaraveler Maligai<br \/>\n  Chennai Collectorate<br \/>\n  Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<br \/>\n  Madurai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 2\/8\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY H.C.P.(MD) No.173 of 2010 Pandiyammal .. Petitioner vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu Represented by The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Home, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-18T02:20:15+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T02:20:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-18T02:20:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-18T02:20:15+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T02:20:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010"},"wordCount":1645,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010","name":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-18T02:20:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pandiyammal-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pandiyammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/235852","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=235852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}