{"id":242955,"date":"2007-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-30T08:48:36","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T03:18:36","slug":"kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 4.12.2007\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\n\nH.C.P.No.1296 of 2007\n\nKalaivani\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..  \tPetitioner\nVs.\n\n1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu\n   Prohibition & Excise Department\n   Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. District Collector and\n   District Magistrate\n   Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.\t..  Respondents\n-----\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n-----\n\t\tFor Petitioner  :  Mr.N.Sudharsan\n\t\tFor Respondents :  Mr.N.R.Elango\n\t\t\t\t         Addl. Public Prosecutor\n-----\n\nO R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioner is the daughter of one Bogi Mani @ Subramani, who has been clamped an order of detention  second respondent herein,  as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).\n<\/p>\n
\t2.1. The order of detention dated 25.7.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.44 of 2007 on the file of Thiruvalangadu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 307 and 302 IPC, based on the statement given by Karthikeyan. On 5.6.2007, the complainant went to the house of one Mariadoss to attend a birthday party.    At that time, the detenu and his associates, armed with knife, iron rods and wooden rods, surrounded Mariadoss and hacked him to death, due to previous enmity.  They also attacked the complainant on his forehead and legs.  They also attacked the brothers of the complainant and Asaithambi, Soundararajan, Saminathan and Sharmila.  Based on the complaint, the case was taken up for investigation and the detenu was arrested.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.2. The detaining authority also took note of two adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime Nos.262\/2003 and 17\/2006 on the file of Thiruvalangadu Police Station for the offence under Sections 160, IPC and under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 read with 109, 149,IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.3.  The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Challenging the said detention, the detenu  has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.14 of 2007, dated 25.7.2007 passed by the second respondent herein, to quash the same and to direct the respondent to produce the detenu, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set him at liberty.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a considerable delay in considering the representation and the same has rendered the detention illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.1. Before delving into the issue relating to the delay as contended above, it would be apt to refer the law on the point.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.2. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India suggests that the obligation of the government is to offer the detenu an opportunity of making a representation against the order, before it is confirmed according to the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of law, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .\n<\/p>\n
\t6.3. The right to representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India includes right to expeditious disposal by the State Government. Expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vide Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi,<\/a> 1992 Supp (3) SCC 65.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.4. Any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal, vide Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan,<\/a> (1980) 2 SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Supdt., Distt. Jail,<\/a> (1986) 1 SCC 650.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.5. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words as soon as may be in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. If delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned.  Even the reason that the Minister was on tour and hence there was a delay of five days in disposing of the representation was rejected by the Apex Court holding that when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is involved, the absence of the Minister at head quarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached the Minister with utmost promptitude in cases involving the vitally important fundamental right of a citizen, vide Rajammal v. State of T.N.,<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 417.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. In the instant case, the impugned order of detention came to be passed on 25.7.2007.  A representation was made to the Government on 6.9.2007 and the same was received by it 7.9.2007. Remarks were called for from the detaining authority on 8.9.2007, which was received by the detaining authority on 11.9.2007. Parawar remarks was called for from the sponsoring authority on 11.9.2007 itself and the same was received on 12.9.2007.  However, the report was sent to the Government only on 17.9.2007, after a delay of three days, excluding two public holidays and the same was received by it on 17.9.2007 itself.  The file was considered by the Under Secretary and the Additional Secretary on 18.9.2007 and the Hon’ble Minister on 19.9.2007.  The rejection order was prepared on 24.9.2007. The delay in considering the representation, as indicated above, was highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no convincing reply on behalf of the State for the said delay. We find some force as well as substance in this contention.  There is absolutely no explanation for this delay.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. At this juncture, a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Sheikh v District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (1996) 3 SCC 194 is apposite:\n<\/p>\n
“In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Government and its officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other files rusting in the Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt with in the same fashion. The Government and its officers will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the liberty and freedom to the person whose detention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest. <\/p>\n
\t9. That apart, it is a settled law that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .\n<\/p>\n
kpl<\/p>\n
P.D.DINAKARAN, J,
\nAND
\nR.REGUPATHI, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The delay which stands unexplained is fatal to the detention order attracting Article 22 of the Constitution of India and  therefore,  the  petition  must succeed and the same is  ordered  as  prayed  for.   The  impugned order of detention is set aside.   The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
Index\t:\tYes\/No\t\t\t     (P.D.D.J.) (R.R.J.)\nInternet\t:\tYes\/No\t\t\t\t\t4.12.2007    \n\nkpl\n   \n\nTo\n\n1.  The Secretary to Government\n    Home, Prohibition and Excise Department\n    Fort St.George, Chennai  9.\n2. District Collector and\n   District Magistrate\n   Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.\n3.  The Superintendent of Central Prison \n    Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.\n4.  The Public Prosecutor\n    High Court, Madras.\n\nH.C.P.No.1296 of 2007.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 4.12.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1296 of 2007 Kalaivani .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department Fort […]<\/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-242955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - 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\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T03:18:36+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T03:18:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1304,\"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\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T03:18:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - 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\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T03:18:36+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T03:18:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007"},"wordCount":1304,"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\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007","name":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T03:18:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalaivani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalaivani vs The Secretary To Government Of … on 4 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/242955","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=242955"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242955\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}