{"id":258991,"date":"1966-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966"},"modified":"2015-07-27T13:10:53","modified_gmt":"2015-07-27T07:40:53","slug":"triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","title":{"rendered":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1283, 1967 SCR (2) 265<\/div>\n
Author: K S Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTRILOKI NATH TIKU & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/12\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1283\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 265\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1971 SC2206\t (4)\n R\t    1972 SC1375\t (75,87)\n RF\t    1973 SC 930\t (4)\n E&R\t    1985 SC1495\t (12,49)\n\n\nACT:\n      Constitution  of\tIndia,\tArt.  16(4)-<\/a>Reservation\t  in\nfavour of backward classes-Requirements of  Article-Backward\nclass, what is.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      The petitioners were school teachers in the service of\nthe  State  of Jammu & Kashmir.\t Persons below them  in\t the\nseniority list were promoted to the higher grade because the\nState  Government in making the promotions gave- 50% of\t the\nhigher\tposts  to  Muslims, 60% of the\tremain50%  to  Jammu\nHindus\tand  the  rest to Kashmiri Pandits  and\t Sikhs.\t its\nmethod\tof  reservation was justified under Art. 16<\/a>  of\t the\nConstitution  an the ground that Muslims all over the  State\nand   Hindus  in  Jammu\t were  backward\t communities.\t The\npetitioners were Kashmiri Pandits.  They came to this  Court\nunder Art. 32.<\/a>\nHELD  :\t The  predominant  concept  underlying\tArt.  16<\/a>  is\nequality  of  opportunity in the matter of  employment;\t and\nwithout\t detriment to that concept, the State is enabled  to\nmake  reservations in favour of backward classes to  give  a\npractical content to the concept of equality.  It is  impli-\ncit  in\t the  article-\tthat the  doctrine  of\tequality  of\nopportunity shall-be reconciled with that of reservation  in\nfavour\tof  backward classes in such a way that\t the  latter\nwhile  serving\tthe  cause of  backward\t classes  shall\t not\nunreasonably encroach upon the field of equality. [268 G-H]\nThe  power under cl. 4 of Art. 16<\/a> can only be  exercised  in\nfavour of backward classes of citizens.\t While the State has\nnecessarily  to\t ascertain  whether a  particular  class  of\ncitizens  are backward or not, having regard  to  acceptable\ncriteria    its is not the   final word on the question,  it\nis  a  justifiable issue.  The power under cl. (4)  is\talso\nconditioned by the fact that in regard any backward  classes\nof  citizens  there  is no adequate  representation  in\t the\nservices of the State, [269 A-B]\nA class cannot be accepted as backward merely because it  is\nnot adequately represented in the services under the  State.\nSuch  a\t contention  if accepted would\texclude\t the  really\nbackward  classes  from\t the benefit of\t the  provision\t and\nconfer\tthe benefit only on a class of citizens who,  though\nrich and cultured have taken to other avocation in life [270\nB-C]\n[On the material before it the Court found it impossible  to\nsay  whether  the Muslims of the entire State of  Jammu\t and\nKashmir\t and  the  Hindus of Jammu  Province  were  backward\ncommunities  within the meaning of Art. 16.<\/a>  The High  Court\nwas therefore asked to collect the relevant material and  to\nsent a report.] [270 E-G]\nM.   R. Balaji v. State of Mysore<\/a>, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439\nand R.\t  Chitralekha  v. State of Mysore<\/a>, [1964]  6  S.C.R.\n368, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965.
\nWrit Petition under Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution of India for
\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
Naunit Lal and Vineet Kumar for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
266<\/span><\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Gupte,\t Solicitor-General of  India,  Raja  Jaswant
\nSingh, Advocate-General for the State of Jammu and  Kashmir,
\nand R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos.\t1 and 2.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSubba  Rao,  C,J.   This  petition  under  Art.\t 32<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution of India has been filed by two teachers for the
\nissue  of  an  appropriate  writ  to  quash  the  orders  of
\npromotion of respondents 3 to 83 and to direct the State  of
\nJammu  &  Kashmir, the 1st respondent, and the\tDirector  of
\nEducation,   Jammu  &  Kashmir\tState,\tSrinagar,  the\t 2nd
\nrespondent,  to\t promote  them\tto  the\t cadre\tof  gazetted
\nteachers with retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
The facts are simple.  The 1st petitioner entered government
\nservice of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir on May 16,
\n1943, as a teacher in the Government School, Trehgam.  He is
\nan M.A., B.T., and is at present working as a teacher in the
\nGovernment   Higher  Secondary\tSchool,\t Sopore.   The\t 2nd
\npetitioner  was likewise appointed as a teacher on  February
\n26,  1952, in the Government Middle School, Nigam,  Kashmir.
\nHe  is a B.A., B.T., and is at present working as a  teacher
\nin the Government High School, Batamallo.  In the year 1957,
\nthe 1st respondent prepared a seniority list of teachers  of
\ngrade  Rs. 80-8-200.  From time to time the  1st  respondent
\nprepared  the seniority lists of teachers of the said  grade
\nand the last of them was prepared in 1961.  Therein the\t 1st
\npetitioner  was given the serial No. 104, and the 2nd  peti-
\ntioner\twas given the serial No. 140.  Whenever\t there\twere
\nvacancies  in the higher grade of Rs.  250-25-350-EB-30-500,
\nwhich is a gazetted cadre, they were filled by promotion  of
\nteachers in the lower grade comprised in the said  seniority
\nlist.\tIt  is\talleged that in promoting  teachers  to\t the
\ngazetted  cadre, respondents 1 and 2 adopted  the  following
\nbasis :\n<\/p>\n
\t       (1)  50 % of the gazetted posts to be  filled
\n\t      by promotion are given to Muslims;
\n\t       (2)  about  60% of the remaining 50%  of\t the
\n\t      posts are filled by Jamvi Hindus (Hindus\tfrom
\n\t      Jammu Province of the State, majority of\twhom
\n\t      are Dogras); and
\n\t       (3)  the\t remaining  40% of the\t50%  of\t the
\n\t      posts are given to Kashmiri Pandits; some time
\n\t      one  or  two posts are given to Sikhs  out  of
\n\t      turn.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To state it differently, out of every 100 gazetted posts, 50
\nwent  to Muslims of the entire State of Jammu, , &  Kashmir,
\n30  went  to  Hindus from the Province\tof  Jammu,  and\t the
\nremaining 20 went
\n267<\/span>
\nto Kashmiri Pandits, out of which one or two went to  Sikhs.
\nThe,  said basis is not disclosed in any order made  by\t the
\nState,\tbut is arrived at on the footing of recruitments  by
\npromotion  made to the gazetted posts of teachers from\ttime
\nto time.  It is also averred that promotions are made not on
\nthe  basis of merit and seniority, but purely on the  ground
\nof  religion,  caste  and place of  birth.   It\t is  further
\nalleged\t that though the two petitioners are seniors as\t per
\nthe  aforesaid seniority list, they have been superseded  by
\nrespondents 3 to 83 only on the ground that the\t petitioners
\nhappen\tto be Kashmiri Pandits and respondents 3 to  83\t are
\neither Muslims or Jammu Hindus.\n<\/p>\n
In  the counter-affidavit the State does not deny  the\tfact
\nthat  promotions  to gazetted posts are made in\t the  manner
\nindicated  by  the petitioners but says that 50\t %,  of\t the
\nposts were filled by Muslims of the entire State of Jammu  &
\nKashmir\t and 40% of them were filled by Jammu citizens.\t  It
\nproceeds  to  support this reservation on  the\tground\tthat
\nMuslims of the entire State and the Hindus of Jammu Province
\nconstituted   “backward\t  classes”‘  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\nemployment and that it is done in order to reduce  gradually
\nthe   imbalance\t between  the  backward\t classes   and\t the
\nprogressive ones..\n<\/p>\n
It  may\t be noticed at the outset that\tthough\tthe  factual
\nbasis for the promotions to the gazetted posts is  admitted,
\nno order made, by the Government is placed before us  either
\nspecifying   the  backward  classes  or\t the  criteria\t for
\nbackwardness or fixing a proportion between backward classes
\nand  others  in the matter of promotion.  There is  also  no
\nacceptable  material from which we can gather  the  relevant
\nfacts,\tnamely,\t the latest census  figures  disclosing\t the
\nstrength  of  the population in the Provinces of  Jammu\t and
\nKashmir,  the population figures of the\t various.  religious
\ngroups, the break-up figures of the different communities of
\nthe   two  major  religious  groups,  the  state  of   their
\nbackwardness-social’,  economic\t and  cultural-the  criteria
\nadopted\t by the State for ascertaining the  backwardness  of
\ndifferent  groups  and\tother relevant\tmaterial.   What  is
\nplaced before us is a general assertion, unsupported by\t any
\nacceptable data, that all the Muslims of both the  Provinces
\nof the State are backward and the majority of the Hindus  of
\nthe Jammu Province are likewise backward.  During the course
\nof  the\t argument,  two statements  showing  the  population
\nfigures\t communitywise\t(1961  census)\tand  the  population
\nfigures\t community-wise (1941 census) with literacy  figures
\nand  their percentage are placed before us.  Apart from\t the
\nfact  that the petitioners have no opportunity to  test\t the
\ncorrectness of the figures, the 1941 census figures may\t not
\nafford\tany  workable guide, as a quarter of a\tcentury\t has
\npassed by since then and there must have been  revolutionary
\nchanges during this period.\n<\/p>\n
268<\/span><\/p>\n
The  law  on  the subject is  well  settled.   The  relevant
\nprovision of the Constitution is Art. 16<\/a>, which reads
\n\t       (1)  There  shall be equality of\t opportunity
\n\t      for  all\tcitizens  in  matters  relating\t  to
\n\t      employment or appointment to any office  under
\n\t      the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (2)  No\tcitizen\t shall, on grounds  only  of
\n\t      religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place  of
\n\t      birth, residence or any of them be  ineligible
\n\t      for,  or discriminated against in respect\t of,
\n\t      any employment or office under the State.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (3)  Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent
\n\t      Parliament from making any law prescribing, in
\n\t      regard to a class or classes of employment  or
\n\t      appointment to an office under the  Government
\n\t      of, or any local or other authority within,  a
\n\t      State  or Union territory, any requirement  as
\n\t      to  residence  within  that  State  or   Union
\n\t      territory\t  prior\t  to  such   employment\t  or
\n\t      appointment.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (4)  Nothing  in this article  shall  prevent
\n\t      the  State from making any provision  for\t the
\n\t      reservation of appointments or posts in favour
\n\t      of  any backward class of citizens  which,  in
\n\t      the  opinion of the State, is  not  adequately
\n\t      represented in the services under the State.
\n(Clauses  (1)  and  (2) of Art.\t 16<\/a>  guarantee\tequality  of
\nopportunity   to  all  citizens\t in  matters   relating\t  to
\nemployment  or\tappointment to any office under\t the  State.
\nBut  if\t the  said  clauses of\tthe  article  are  literally
\nenforced,  instead of giving equality of opportunity to\t all
\ncitizens,  it  will  lead to  glaring  inequalities.   In  a
\ncountry where there are different strata of society  ranging
\nfrom highly sophisticated to lowly backward, the concept  of
\nequality will drive the latter to the wall.  Their condition
\nwould become worse than what it is.  So, in order to give  a
\nreal  opportunity to them to compete with the better  placed
\npeople,\t cls.  (3) and (4) are introduced  in  the  article.
\nWhile  clause (2) prohibits the place of birth or  residence
\nas  the sole criterion in the matter of\t employment,  clause
\n(3) permits residential qualification in the State or  Union
\nterritory.   While  clauses  (1)  and  (2)  guarantee  equal
\nopportunity to all citizens, clause (4) enables the State to
\nmake a provision for reservation of appointments or posts in
\nfavour of any backward classes of citizens.  The predominant
\nconcept underlying the provision is equality of\t opportunity
\nin  the matter of employment; and, without detriment to\t the
\nsaid  concept, the State is enabled to make reservations  in
\nfavour of backwarded classes to give a practical content  to
\nthe concept of equality.  It is implicit in the article that
\nthe doctrine of equality of opportunity shall be  reconciled
\nwith  that of reservation in favour of backward\t classes  in
\nsuch  a\t way  that the latter while  serving  the  cause  of
\nbackward classes shall not unreasonably
\n269<\/span>
\nthe power conferred upon the State under clause (4) can only
\nbe  exercised  in favour of backward classes  of  citizens;.
\nthat  is to say, whether a particular class of citizens\t are
\nbackward  is.  an objective factor to be determined  by\t the
\nState.\tWhile the State has necessarily to ascertain whether
\na  particular class of citizens are backward or not,  having
\nregard\tto acceptable criteria, it is not the final word  on
\nthe question; it is a justiciable issue.  While ordinarily a
\ncourt  may accept the decision of the State in that  regard,
\nit  is\topen to be canvassed if that decision  is  based  on
\nirrelevant  considerations.  The power under clause  (4)  is
\nalso conditioned by the fact that in regard to any  backward
\nclasses of citizens there is. no adequate representation  in
\nthe  services under the State.\tThe opinion of the State  in
\nthis regard may ordinarily be accepted as final, except when
\nit  is established that there is an abuse of power.  A\tfair
\nreading\t of Art. 16<\/a>, therefore, discloses the following\t in-
\ngredients for the applicability of the provision : (i) there
\nshall  be  equality of opportunity for all citizens  in\t the
\nmatter\tof  employment; (ii) there can\tbe  reservations  of
\nappointments  or  posts in favour of backward  classes;\t and\n<\/p>\n
(iii) the backward classes are not adequately represented in
\nthe services under the State.\n<\/p>\n
Decided cases have laid down certain tests for\tascertaining
\nwhether\t a  particular\tclass is a backward  class  or\tnot.
\nThough\tthe decision in M. R. Balaji v. State  of  Mysore<\/a>(1)
\nturned upon.  Art. 15(4)<\/a> of the Constitution, the principles
\nlaid  down therein, will equally apply to the facts  of\t the
\npresent case.  There this Court held that backwardness under
\nArt.  15(4)<\/a>  must be social and political  and\tthat  social
\nbackwardness  was  in the ultimate analysis  the  result  of
\npoverty to a very large extent.\t In the context of admission
\nto  educational institutions this Court held that  speaking.
\ngenerally  in  a  broad way the\t provision  for\t reservation
\nshould\tbe less than 50% and that actual  percentage  should
\ndepend upon the prevailing circumstances in each case.
\nThe  decision in R. Chitralekha v. State of  Mysore<\/a>(2)\talso
\nturned\tupon  the  interpretation  of,\tArt.  15(4)<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tIn that case the Government of\tMysore\tlaid
\ndown  that  classification  of\tsocially  and  educationally
\nbackward classes should be made on the following basis : (i)
\neconomic conditions, and (ii) occupation.  But the order  of
\nthe Government did not take into consideration the caste  of
\nthe applicant as one of the criteria for backwardness.\tThis
\nCourt pointed out that, though the caste of a group of citi-
\nzens might be a relevant circumstance in ascertaining  their
\nsocial\tbackwardness,  it  could  not be  the  sole  or\t the
\ndominant  test\tin  that behalf.  This\tCourt  accepted\t the
\ncriteria  adopted by the Mysore Government for\tascertaining
\nthe backwardness of a class.  The.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1963] Supp.  I S. C.R. 439.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368..\n<\/p>\n
270<\/span><\/p>\n
argument  advanced on behalf of the State, namely, that\t the
\ndifference  in the phraseology used in Art. 15(4)<\/a>  and\tArt.
\n16(4<\/a>), namely socially and educationally backward classes in
\nthe  former and backward. classes ;in the latter,  leads  to
\nthe   inevitable  conclusion  that  “backward  classes”\t  of
\ncitizens in Art. 16(4)<\/a> are only such classes of citizens who
\nare not adequately represented in the services of the  State
\ndoes not appeal to us.\tThe sole test of backwardness  under
\nArt.  16(4<\/a>),  the argument proceeds, is\t the  inadequacy  of
\nrepresentation\tin the services under the State; that is  to
\nsay,  however  advanced\t a  particular\tclass  of  citizens,
\nsocially  and  educationally, may be, if that class  is\t not
\nadequately  represented in the services under the State,  it
\nis  a backward class.  This contention, if  accepted,  would
\nexclude the really backward classes from the benefit of\t the
\nprovision and confer the benefit only on a class of citizens
\nwho,  though rich and cultured, have taken to  other  avoca-
\ntions  of life.\t It is, therefore, necessary to satisfy\t two
\nconditions  to attract clause (4) of Art. 16<\/a>, namely, (i)  a
\nclass\tof   citizens  is  backward,  i.e.,   socially\t and
\neducationally,\tin the sense explained in Balaji’s  case(1);
\nand (ii) the said class is not adequately represented in the
\nservices under the State.\n<\/p>\n
The question therefore is whether Mohammedans of the  entire
\nState  of  Jammu  &  Kashmir and the  Hindus  of  the  Jammu
\nProvince are backward in the sense explained above and\talso
\nwhether ,they are not adequately represented in the services
\nof  the State.\tSecondly, if they are backward, whether\t the
\npercentages  of\t reservations  provided\t for  them  in\t the
\ngazetted  cadre of teachers are reasonable having regard  to
\nthe  employment opportunities ‘in that cadre of service\t to
\nthe  general public.  We find it very difficult to  come  to
\none conclusion or other on the material placed before us. It
\nis, therefore, necessary to call for a report before we\t can
\nfinally\t dispose of the writ petition.\tWe direct  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Jammu  & Kashmir either  directly  or  through  a
\nDistrict  Court to .gather the necessary material, such\t as,
\nthe  total  population\tof the entire  State,  the  break-up
\nfigures\t of  the two provinces, the  strength  of  different
\ncommunities  and  the extent of their  social  and  economic
\nbackwardness  and the criteria applied by the State in\tthat
\nregard.\t  ‘The High Court is directed to submit\t the  report
\nwithin\ttwo months from the date of receipt of\tthe  record.
\nThe parties will have liberty to place necessary  material,
\noral and documentary, before the High Court or the  District
\nCourt, as the case may be.  Costs will abide the result.
\nG. C.\t\t\tReport called for.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439.\n<\/p>\n
271<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1283, 1967 SCR (2) 265 Author: K S Rao Bench: Rao, K. Subba (Cj) PETITIONER: TRILOKI NATH TIKU & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS. DATE […]<\/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-258991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTriloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - 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\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-27T07:40:53+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T07:40:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2304,\"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\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\",\"name\":\"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-27T07:40:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - 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\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-27T07:40:53+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966","datePublished":"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T07:40:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966"},"wordCount":2304,"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\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966","name":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-27T07:40:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/triloki-nath-tiku-anr-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-ors-on-15-december-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Triloki Nath Tiku & Anr vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors on 15 December, 1966"}]},{"@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\/258991","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=258991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}