{"id":242047,"date":"1951-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951"},"modified":"2016-06-04T19:28:45","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T13:58:45","slug":"harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","title":{"rendered":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR  467, \t\t  1952 SCR  110<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Bose<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Bose, Vivian<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nHARLA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/09\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nBENCH:\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  467\t\t  1952 SCR  110\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC 562\t (2)\n RF\t    1978 SC1675\t (194)\n RF\t    1980 SC1230\t (19)\n RF\t    1988 SC 440\t (23)\n RF\t    1990 SC1256\t (27)\n\n\nACT:\n    Jaipur  Laws  Act,\t1923,  s.  3(b)--Jaipur\t Opium\tAct,\n1923--Law passed by Council of Ministers not promulgated  or\npublished in Gazette--Validity of law--Necessity  of promul-\ngation\tof laws-Natural justice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Natural  justice requires that before a law\t can  become\noperative  it must be promulgated or published. It  must  be\nbroadcast in some recognisable way so that all men may\tknow\nwhat  it is; or at least there must be some special rule  or\nregulation  or\tcustomary channel by or through\t which\tsuch\nknowledge  can\tbe  acquired with the exercise\tof  due\t and\nreasonable diligence.\n    The\t Council of Ministers appointed by the Crown  Repre-\nsentative  for\tthe  government and  administration  of\t the\nJaipur State passed a Resolution in 1923 purporting to enact\na law called the Jaipur Opium Act, but this law was  neither\npromulgated  or published in the Gazette nor made  known  to\nthe  public.   The  Jaipur Laws Act, 1923,  which  was\talso\npassed\tby the Council and which came into force on the\t 1st\nNovember,  1924,  provided by s. 3 (b) that the\t law  to  be\nadministered  by the court of the Jaipur State shall  be...\"\n(b) all the regulations now in force within the said  terri-\ntories and the enactments and regulations that may hereafter\nbe  passed from time to. time by the State and published  in\nthe  Official  Gazette.\"  In 1938 the Jaipur Opium  Act\t was\namended by adding a clause to the effect that \"it shall come\ninto force from the 1st of September, 1924.\"\n    Held,  that\t the mere passing of the Resolution  of\t the\nCouncil\t without further publication or promulgation of\t the\nlaw  was  not sufficient to make the law operative  and\t the\nJaipur\tOpium Act was not therefore a valid law.  Held\tfur-\nther,  that  the said Act was not saved by s. 3 (b)  of\t the\nJaipur Laws Act, 1923, as it was not a valid law in force on\nthe 1st November, 1924, and the mere addition of a clause in\n1938 that it shall come into force in 1924 was of no use.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CRIMINAL APPELLATE\tJURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal No. 5<br \/>\nof  1951.   Appeal from the Judgment and  Order\t dated\t18th<br \/>\nAugust, &#8216;1950, of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan<br \/>\nat  Jaipur  (Nawal  Kishore C.J. and Dave  J.)\tin  Criminal<br \/>\nReference No. 229 of Sambat 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>      H. J. Umrigar for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>      G. C. Mathur for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">111<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    1951.   September  24.  The Judgment of  the  Court\t was<br \/>\ndelivered by<br \/>\n    Bose J.&#8211;The appellant was convicted under section 7  of<br \/>\nthe  Jaipur Opium Act and fined Rs. 50. The case as such  is<br \/>\ntrivial\t but the High Court of Rajasthan in  Jaipur  granted<br \/>\nspecial\t leave to appeal as an important point touching\t the<br \/>\nvires of the Act arises.  We will state the facts chronolog-<br \/>\nically.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is conceded that the Rulers of Jaipur had full powers<br \/>\nof government including those of legislation. On the 7th  of<br \/>\nSeptember,  1922, the late Maharaja died and at the time  of<br \/>\nhis death his successor, the present Maharaja, was a  minor.<br \/>\nAccordingly,-the Crown Representative appointed a Council of<br \/>\nMinisters to look after the government and administration of<br \/>\nthe State during the Maharaja&#8217;s minority-\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthe  11th of December, 1923, this Council  passed  a<br \/>\nResolution  which purported to enact the Jaipur\t Opium\tAct,<br \/>\nand  the  only question is whether the mere passing  of\t the<br \/>\nResolution  without promulgation or publication in  the\t Ga-<br \/>\nzette,\tor other means to make the Act known to the  public,<br \/>\nwas sufficient to make it law. We are of opinion that it was<br \/>\nnot.  But before giving our reasons for so holding, we\twill<br \/>\nrefer to some further facts.\n<\/p>\n<p>    About  the same time (that is to say, in the  year\t1923<br \/>\nwe  have  not been given the exact date)  the  same  Council<br \/>\nenacted the Jaipur Laws Act, 1923. Section 3(b) of this\t Act<br \/>\nprovided as follows :&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;3.\t Subject to the prerogative of the Ruler the law  to<br \/>\nbe  administered  by the Court of Jaipur State shall  be  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t All  the regulations now in force within  the\tsaid<br \/>\nterritories,  and  the enactments and regulations  that\t may<br \/>\nhereafter  be  passed  from time to time by  the  State\t and<br \/>\npublished in the Official Gazette.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    This law came into force on the 1st of November, 1924.<br \/>\n    It\tis  admitted  that the Jaipur Opium  Act  was  never<br \/>\npublished  in the Gazette either before or after the 1st  of<br \/>\nNovember, 1924. But it is contended that was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">112<\/span><br \/>\nnot necessary because it was a &#8220;regulation&#8221; already in force<br \/>\non that date.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t only other fact of consequence is that on the\t19th<br \/>\nof May, 1938, section 1 of the Jaipur Opium Act was  amended<br \/>\nby the addition of sub-section (c) which ran as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;(c)  It  shall come into force from the 1st  of  September,<br \/>\n1924.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t offence for which the appellant was convicted\ttook<br \/>\nplace on the 8th of October, 1948.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Dealing  first with the last of these Acts,\t namely\t the<br \/>\none of the 19th of May, 1938, we can put that on one side at<br \/>\nonce because, unless the Opium Act was valid when made,\t the<br \/>\nmere addition of a clause fourteen years later stating\tthat<br \/>\nit  shall come into force at a date fourteen  years  earlier<br \/>\nwould  be useless.  In the year 1938 there was a  law  which<br \/>\nrequired all enactments after the 1st of November, 1924,  to<br \/>\nbe  published in the Gazette.  Therefore, if the  Opium\t Act<br \/>\nwas not a valid Act at that date, it could not be  validated<br \/>\nby the publication of only one section of it in the  Gazette<br \/>\nfourteen years later.  The Jaipur Laws Act of 1923  required<br \/>\nthe whole of the enactment to be published; therefore publi-<br \/>\ncation\tof only one section would not validate it if it\t was<br \/>\nnot already valid. We need not consider whether a law  could<br \/>\nbe made retroactive so as to take effect from 1924 by publi-<br \/>\ncation in 1938, though that point was argued. That throws us<br \/>\nback to the position in 1923 and raises the question whether<br \/>\na  law could be brought into operation by a mere  resolution<br \/>\nof the Jaipur Council.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tdo not know what laws were operative in\t Jaipur\t re-<br \/>\ngarding the coming into force of an enactment in that State.<br \/>\nWe  were not shown any, nor was our attention drawn  to\t any<br \/>\ncustom\twhich  could be said to govern the  matter.  In\t the<br \/>\nabsence of any special law or custom, we are of opinion that<br \/>\nit  would  be against the principles of natural\t justice  to<br \/>\npermit\tthe subjects of a State to be punished or  penalised<br \/>\nby  laws  of which they had no knowledge and of\t which\tthey<br \/>\ncould  not  even with the exercise of  reasonable  diligence<br \/>\nhave acquired any knowledge. Natural justice requires that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">113<\/span><br \/>\nbefore a law can become operative it must be promulgated  or<br \/>\npublished.  It must be broadcast in some recognisable way so<br \/>\nthat  all  men may know what it is; or, at the\tvery  least,<br \/>\nthere  must be some special rule or regulation or  customary<br \/>\nchannel\t by or through which such knowledge can be  acquired<br \/>\nwith  the  exercise  of due and\t reasonable  diligence.\t The<br \/>\nthought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of  a<br \/>\nchamber to which the public have no access and to which even<br \/>\ntheir accredited representatives have no access and of which<br \/>\nthey  can  normally know nothing,  can\tnevertheless  affect<br \/>\ntheir  lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of  a<br \/>\nResolution  without anything more is abhorrent to  civilised<br \/>\nman.  It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore  of<br \/>\nany  law,  rule, regulation or custom, we hold\tthat  a\t law<br \/>\ncannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publica-<br \/>\ntion of some reasonable sort is essential.<br \/>\n    In\tEngland the rule is that Acts of  Parliament  become<br \/>\nlaw  from the first moment of the day on which they  receive<br \/>\nthe Royal assent, but Royal Proclamations only when actually<br \/>\npublished  in  the  official Gazette. See  footnote  (a)  to<br \/>\nparagraph  776.\t page  601, of Halsbury&#8217;s  Laws\t of  England<br \/>\n(Hailsham  edition),  Volume VI and 32\tHalsbury&#8217;s  Laws  of<br \/>\nEngland\t (Hailsham  edition), page 150 note  (r).  But\teven<br \/>\nthere it was necessary to enact a special Act of  Parliament<br \/>\nto enable such proclamations to become law by publication in<br \/>\nthe Gazette though a Royal Proclamation is the highest\tkind<br \/>\nof law, other than an Act of Parliament, known to the  Brit-<br \/>\nish  Constitution;  and even the publication in\t the  London<br \/>\nGazette will not make the proclamation valid in Scotland nor<br \/>\nwill publication in the Edinburgh Gazette make it valid\t for<br \/>\nEngland.  It  is clear therefore that the mere\tenacting  or<br \/>\nsigning\t of a Royal Proclamation is not enough.\t There\tmust<br \/>\nbe publication before it can become law, and in England\t the<br \/>\nnature of the publication has to be prescribed by an Act  of<br \/>\nParliament.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Act  of Parliament regulating this  matter  is\t the<br \/>\nCrown Office Act of 1877&#8242; (40 and 41 Victoria Ch. 41).\tThat<br \/>\nAct,  in  addition to making provision\tfor  publication  in<br \/>\ncertain official Gazettes, also provides for the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">114<\/span><br \/>\nmaking\tof rules by Order in Council for the best  means  of<br \/>\nmaking\tProclamations known to the public. The British\tPar-<br \/>\nliament has therefore insisted in the Crown Office Act\tthat<br \/>\nnot  only  must there be publication in the Gazette  but  in<br \/>\naddition  there\t must be other modes  of  publication,if  an<br \/>\nOrder in Council so directs, so that the people at large may<br \/>\nknow  what  these  special laws are. The  Crown\t Office\t Act<br \/>\ndirects\t  His Majesty in Council carefully to  consider\t the<br \/>\nbest  mode  of\tmaking these laws known to  the\t public\t and<br \/>\nempowers that body to draw up rules for the same and  embody<br \/>\nthem in an Order in Council. We take it that if these  Proc-<br \/>\nlamations are not published strictly in accordance with\t the<br \/>\nrules so drawn up, they will not be valid law.<br \/>\n    The\t principle underlying this question has\t been  judi-<br \/>\ncially\tconsidered in England.\tFor example, on\t a  somewhat<br \/>\nlower  plane, it was held in Johnson v. Sargant (1) that  an<br \/>\nOrder of the Food Controller under the Beans, Peas and Pulse<br \/>\n(Requisition) Order, 1917 does not become operative until it<br \/>\nis  made known to the public, and the difference between  an<br \/>\nOrder  of that kind and an Act of the British Parliament  is<br \/>\nStressed.  The\tdifference is obvious. Acts of\tthe  British<br \/>\nParliament are publicly enacted. The debates are open to the<br \/>\npublic and the Acts are passed by the accredited representa-<br \/>\ntives of the people who in theory can be trusted to see that<br \/>\ntheir  constituents know what has been done. They  also\t re-<br \/>\nceive wide publicity in papers and, now, over the  wireless.<br \/>\nNot  so Royal Proclamations and Orders of a Food  Controller<br \/>\nand  so\t forth.\t There must therefore  be  promulgation\t and<br \/>\npublication  in\t their cases. The mode\tof  publication\t can<br \/>\nvary;  what is a good method in one country may\t not  neces-<br \/>\nsarily\tbe the best in another.\t But reasonable\t publication<br \/>\nof some sort there must be.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Nor\t is the principle peculiar to England.\tIt  was\t ap-<br \/>\nplied  to France by the Code Napoleon, the first Article  of<br \/>\nwhich  states that the laws are executory &#8220;by virtue of\t the<br \/>\npromulgation  thereof&#8221; and that they shall come into  effect<br \/>\n&#8220;from the moment at which their<br \/>\n(1) [1918] 1 K.B. 10I; 67 L.J.K.B. 122.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">115<\/span><\/p>\n<p>promulgation  can  have been known.&#8221;  So also  it  has\tbeen<br \/>\napplied\t in  India in, for instance, matters  arising  under<br \/>\nRule  119 of the Defence of India Rules.  See, for  example,<br \/>\nCrown  v. Manghumal Tekuml(1), Shakoor v. King\tEmperor\t (2)<br \/>\nand  Babulal v. King Emperor (3). It is true none  of  these<br \/>\ncases  is analogous to the one before us but they  are\tonly<br \/>\nparticular applications of a deeper rule which is rounded on<br \/>\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Council of Ministers which passed the Jaipur  Opium<br \/>\nAct was not a sovereign body nor did it function of its\t own<br \/>\nright.\t It was brought into being by the Crown\t Representa-<br \/>\ntive,  and  the Jaipur Gazette Notification dated  the\t11th<br \/>\nAugust,\t 1923, defined and limited its powers. We are  enti-<br \/>\ntled  therefore to import into this matter consideration  of<br \/>\nthe principles and notions of natural justice which underlie<br \/>\nthe  British  Constitution, for it is inconceivable  that  a<br \/>\nrepresentative\tof His Britannic Majesty could have  contem-<br \/>\nplated\tthe creation of a body which could wield  powers  so<br \/>\nabhorrent  to the fundamental principles of natural  justice<br \/>\nwhich  all freedom loving peoples share.  We hold  that,  in<br \/>\nthe absence of some specific law or custom to the  contrary,<br \/>\na  mere resolution of a Council of Ministers in\t the  Jaipur<br \/>\nState without further publication or promulgation would\t not<br \/>\nbe sufficient to make a law operative.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It is necessary to consider another point.\tIt was urged<br \/>\nthat  section 3(b) of the Jaipur Laws Act of 1923 saved\t all<br \/>\nregulations then in force from the necessity of\t publication<br \/>\nin the Gazette. That may be so, but the Act only saved\tlaws<br \/>\nwhich  were valid at the time and not resolutions which\t had<br \/>\nnever acquired the force of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appeal succeeds.  The conviction and  sentence\t are<br \/>\nset aside.  The fine, if paid, will be refunded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t     Appeal  allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p> Agent\tfor  the appellant: R.A. Govind. Agent for  the\t re-<br \/>\nspondent: P.A. Mehta.\n<\/p>\n<p> (1)  I.L.R.  1944 Karachi 107.\t\t   (3)\tI.L.R.\t1945<br \/>\nNag. 762.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) I.L.R. 1944 Nag. 150.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">116<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 467, 1952 SCR 110 Author: V Bose Bench: Bose, Vivian PETITIONER: HARLA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/09\/1951 BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN BENCH: BOSE, VIVIAN MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND CITATION: 1951 AIR 467 1952 SCR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-242047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - 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\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\" \/>\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=\"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-04T13:58:45+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T13:58:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\"},\"wordCount\":1874,\"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\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\",\"name\":\"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T13:58:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - 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\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-04T13:58:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951","datePublished":"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T13:58:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951"},"wordCount":1874,"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\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951","name":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T13:58:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harla-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-on-24-september-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951"}]},{"@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\/242047","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=242047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}