{"id":26041,"date":"2002-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002"},"modified":"2015-10-08T19:47:32","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T14:17:32","slug":"s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","title":{"rendered":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 18\/06\/2002  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN          \n\nW.P.M.P.No.29105 of 2002 in W.P.No.21056 of 2002  \n-------\n\nS.Udhayakumar                           ..Petitioner.      \n\nVs.\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu,\nrep. by its Secy. to Govt.,\nLaw Department, \nFort St.George,\nChennai - 600 009.\n\n2. The Union of India,\nrep. by its Secretary,\nMinistry of Law, Justice &amp;\nCompany Affairs, \nNew Delhi.\n\n3. The Mayor,\nCorporation of Chennai.                 .. Respondents.         \n\n\n\n\nFOR Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel\n                  for M\/s.La Law\nFor Respondent -1 : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel  \n\nFor Respondent -2 : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General\n\nFor Respondent - 3: Mr.S.Ramaswamy.   \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        (The Order of the Court was made by the Hon&#8217;ble The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n<p>        The cause espoused in this pro bono publico  writ  petition  is  the<br \/>\n      constitutionality  of  the  Tamil  Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act,<br \/>\n      2002 (T.N.Act 29 of 2002).  There are totally 6 Sections  in  the  said<br \/>\n      amending Act.   By Section-2 of the Amending Act Section 52(A) has been<br \/>\n      inserted in Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 disabling  the<br \/>\n      members of Legislative Assembly or Parliament from either contesting or<br \/>\n      continuing  either  the  post of Mayor or Deputy Mayor or Councillor of<br \/>\n      the Municipality, which includes Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  We need not refer to other provisions as Section 2  specifically<br \/>\n      refers to  Chennai  Municipal Corporation Act.  The other Section which<br \/>\n      needs reference is Section -6 which reads thus;\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Notwithstanding anything contained in the 1919 Act, the  1971  Act,<br \/>\n      the  1981 &#8211; Act or the 1920 Act, as amended by this Act, or in any other<br \/>\n      law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order  of<br \/>\n      a  court,  if  a  member  of the Legislative Assembly of the State or a<br \/>\n      member of either House of parliament holds the office of Mayor,  Deputy<br \/>\n      Mayor  or  Councillor  of  a  municipal  corporation  or chairman, vice<br \/>\n      chairman or  councilor  of  a  municipality  or  of  a  town  Panchayat<br \/>\n      immediately  before  the  date  of publication of this Act in the Tamil<br \/>\n      Nadu government Gazette, he shall cease to  hold  such  office  at  the<br \/>\n      expiration  of  fifteen days from the date of such publication and such<br \/>\n      office shall become vacant, unless he ceases to  be  a  member  of  the<br \/>\n      Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  or  a  member of either House of<br \/>\n      Parliament before the expiry of the said period  of  fifteen  days,  by<br \/>\n      resignation or otherwise&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   We  need  to  mention  some  facts  concisely, relevant for the<br \/>\n      adjudication of this writ miscellaneous petition, as the writ  petition<br \/>\n      has already been admitted.  Counters have been filed by the respondents<br \/>\n      2  and  3,  who  are  the  State  Government  and  the Mayor of Chennai<br \/>\n      Corporation respectively.  The Union Government, the second respondent,<br \/>\n      is represented by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor-General.<br \/>\n      Mr.   N.R.Chandran,  learned  Advocate  General  represented  the   1st<br \/>\n      respondent &#8211;  State  Government.    While  Mr.S.Ramaswamy,  the learned<br \/>\n      counsel appeared for the 3rd respondent &#8211; Mayor.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.  Mr.M.K.Stalin  has  been  elected  as  Member  of  Thousand  Lights<br \/>\n      Assembly   Constituency   within   the   limits  of  Chennai  Municipal<br \/>\n      Corporation.  That was in the elections conducted during the  month  of<br \/>\n      May 2001.    Elections to local bodies were conducted including that of<br \/>\n      Mayor of Chennai Municipal Corporation.    He  had  contested  for  the<br \/>\n      Mayoral post  during  October 2001 and won the election.  The tenure of<br \/>\n      the said post is for 5 years, but he was served with a notice, pursuant<br \/>\n      to the gazette notification dated 4.6.2002, calling  upon  him  to  opt<br \/>\n      either to remain as legislator or Mayor and not both, and should he not<br \/>\n      opt  of  not  being a legislator, then he will lose the Mayoral post on<br \/>\n      the expiry of 15 days, from the date of such notification i.e., on  the<br \/>\n      expiry of  18th  of  June  2002.    This  notification  has been issued<br \/>\n      pursuant to Section 6 of the amending Act,  which  has  been  extracted<br \/>\n      above.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.   Mr.M.K.Stalin  himself  did  not  challenge the validity of either<br \/>\n      amending Act or the notification or the notice issued pursuant thereto.<br \/>\n      An Advocate of this Court has filed this writ petition.  The matter was<br \/>\n      heard  at  the  admission  stage  yesterday  and  has  been   admitted,<br \/>\n      prima-facie  taking  the  view that there is a public interest and that<br \/>\n      there is locus for the petitioner to challenge the  provisions  of  the<br \/>\n      amending Act.    Interlocutory  Application  seeking  interim  stay  of<br \/>\n      operation of Sections 2 and 6 of the Amending Act has been posted today<br \/>\n      and we have heard  the  arguments  of  Mr.K.M.Vijayan,  learned  Senior<br \/>\n      Counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner,  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned<br \/>\n      Additional Solicitor General, appearing for  the  second  respondent  &#8211;<br \/>\n      Union of India, Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing for<br \/>\n      the  1st  respondent  &#8211;  State  Government  and Mr.S.Ramaswamy, learned<br \/>\n      counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent &#8211; Mayor.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.  Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the  petitioner  submits<br \/>\n      that  the  amending  Act  lacks  in  legislative  competence  as  it is<br \/>\n      violative of Part IX A of the Constitution, which was introduced by the<br \/>\n      Constitution by 73rd Amendment Act of 1992.  It is his submission  that<br \/>\n      constitutional  provisions  contained in the above Chapter do not place<br \/>\n      any embargo for holding 2 posts i.e.,  Legislator  and  Mayor  and  his<br \/>\n      alternative  argument is even if such an embargo is to be read and that<br \/>\n      the State is empowered to legislate  prohibiting  the  holding  of  two<br \/>\n      posts,  in  no  event, the amending Act can be read as retrospective in<br \/>\n      operation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  has  also<br \/>\n      contended on similar lines and further submitted that the post of Mayor<br \/>\n      cannot  be  segregated  from  the  rest  of  the  Council  and that the<br \/>\n      Municipality or the Municipal Corporation, as the case may  be,  should<br \/>\n      be  construed as a whole, of which the mayor or another Chair Person is<br \/>\n      an  essential  component  and  that  there  cannot  be  any  dissection<br \/>\n      separating  the  mayor or Chair Person from the rest of the Council and<br \/>\n      cutting short  of  the  term  of  Mayor  or  Chair  Person  amounts  to<br \/>\n      dissolution of the Council itself and the Constitutional mandate in the<br \/>\n      above  Chapter  being  that  the  tenure  shall last 5 years and as the<br \/>\n      statutory  provision  in  Section  6  of  the  Amending  Act  does  not<br \/>\n      expressely  state  that the Amending Act is retrospective in operation,<br \/>\n      it can only be construed that it will act prospectively and for  future<br \/>\n      legislators  debarring  them  from  contesting  and  cannot  be applied<br \/>\n      presently to dislodge the person holding the 3rd respondent&#8217;s post.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.  Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General  submits  that  there  is<br \/>\n      legislative  competence  for  enacting  the Amendment Act, and that the<br \/>\n      power to legislate is drawn from sub-Article (3) of Article 246, and as<br \/>\n      the legislative item falls in List &#8211; II, the Parliament has got no  say<br \/>\n      in  the  matter  and  that  the State Legislature has got competence to<br \/>\n      legislate and the Amending Act is not retrospective in  operation,  but<br \/>\n      it  acts  only  retroactively, so far as the person holding the post is<br \/>\n      concerned and that right to contest in election or hold political  post<br \/>\n      is not a fundamental right and being the creature of Statute can always<br \/>\n      be   withdrawn   by  the  statute  and  that  there  is  absolutely  no<br \/>\n      unconstitutionality or illegality in the amending Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.  Mr.S.Ramaswamy, learned counsel appearing for  the  3rd  respondent<br \/>\n      did  not  address  arguments  in detail, and he only submitted that the<br \/>\n      amending Act is made only to dislodge his client, and is arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10.  At the outset, we are unable to accede to the  contention  of  the<br \/>\n      learned  Advocate  General  that  the State has got unfettered right to<br \/>\n      legislate on any subject  in  List  II  of  the  Schedule  VII  of  the<br \/>\n      Constitution.   No  legislation  can  be  unfettered as it has to stand<br \/>\n      scrutiny of Part III of the Indian Constitution.  We need not elaborate<br \/>\n      on other aspects such as basic structure,  etc.,  but  in  the  instant<br \/>\n      case,  in  addition  to  satisfying  the  test  of  fundamental  rights<br \/>\n      enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, amending Act  has  to<br \/>\n      stand to   the  scrutiny  of  Chapter  IX  A  thereof.    Article  243Q<br \/>\n      contemplates  constitution   of   municipalities   be   it   Panchayat,<br \/>\n      municipalities  or  municipal  corporation  basing upon the population.<br \/>\n      Article 243R deals with the composition  of  municipalities.    Article<br \/>\n      243S  deals with constitution and composition of wards Committees etc.,<br \/>\n      Article 243T deals with the Reservation of Seats.  Article  243U  deals<br \/>\n      with Duration   of   Municipalities.    Article  243V  deals  with  the<br \/>\n      Disqualification for membership.  Article 243W deals with  the  powers,<br \/>\n      Authority  and  Responsibilities  of Municipalities, etc., Article 243X<br \/>\n      deals  with  the  Power  to  Impose  Taxes  by,  and  Funds,   of   the<br \/>\n      Municipalities.   There  are other related provisions but important and<br \/>\n      relevant  in  this  adjudication  are  the  Constitutional   provisions<br \/>\n      contained in Articles 243Q and 243R, 243U and 243V.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11.   In  this  regard,  we  concur  with  the contentions addressed by<br \/>\n      Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned  Senior  Counsel  and  Mr.V.T.Gopalan,  learned<br \/>\n      Additional  Solicitor  General,  that the legislation by the State with<br \/>\n      regard  to  local  authorities  should  be  in  consonance   with   the<br \/>\n      constitutional provisions contained in Part IX and Part IXA, introduced<br \/>\n      in the  Constitution.   In the context of this case, provisions dealing<br \/>\n      with the municipalities including the municipal corporation, the  basic<br \/>\n      factors  for  legislation  are  provided  by  the  above constitutional<br \/>\n      provisions and the State Government has got no power  to  deviate  from<br \/>\n      the said constitutional provisions and can legislate only in accordance<br \/>\n      with  and  in  tune  with  the  said constitutional provisions, and not<br \/>\n      otherwise.  The above constitutional provisions circumscribes the power<br \/>\n      of the State Government to enact laws relating to local authorities  to<br \/>\n      be within the limits enumerated by the above constitutional provisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12.   Several  questions arise for consideration and more particularly,<br \/>\n      whether the disablement of Mayor during the tenure of  the  term  of  5<br \/>\n      years affects the composition of the Municipal Corporation, and if that<br \/>\n      be so,  whether  it results in violation of Article 243R.  The question<br \/>\n      also arises as to whether a Mayor&#8217;s term can be  curtailed  because  of<br \/>\n      the duration  of  5  years  as  provided under Article 243U.  A further<br \/>\n      question also arises, in fact, important in the present context  as  to<br \/>\n      whether sub-Article (2) of Article 243V is attracted so as to annul the<br \/>\n      amending  Act,  and lastly even if the impugned amendment is intravires<br \/>\n      the constitution, can it be construed as  retrospective  in  operation,<br \/>\n      and  further  whether  an election to Mayoral post is an accrued right,<br \/>\n      which cannot be divested during the middle of the tenure.    These  are<br \/>\n      very  vital  and  comprehensive aspects, which can only be gone into in<br \/>\n      the writ  petition.    Further   more,   two   writ   petitions   viz.,<br \/>\n      W.P.Nos.19214  and  22365  of 2001, which have been filed in this Court<br \/>\n      and which have been admitted and are pending, regarding  the  right  of<br \/>\n      Mr.M.K.  Stalin  to  contest the post of Mayor for the second time.  In<br \/>\n      our considered view, this writ petition needs to be  heard  along  with<br \/>\n      the  above  two  writ  petitions,  as  they  have  got  bearing  on the<br \/>\n      adjudication of this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13.  In view of what is discussed above, while there is a  prima  facie<br \/>\n      case  for the grant of an interim order, having regard to the facts and<br \/>\n      circumstances of the case, and the balance of convenience, we  deem  it<br \/>\n      appropriate  that  there  should  be a limited stay of operation of the<br \/>\n      impugned Act only to the extent of not notifying the  election  to  the<br \/>\n      Mayor&#8217;s post,   pending   disposal  of  the  writ  petition.    In  the<br \/>\n      circumstances, while declining to stay the operation of  Section  6  of<br \/>\n      the Amending  Act  (T.N.    Act  29  of  2002) in entirety, we stay the<br \/>\n      operation of the above provision only regarding treating  the  post  of<br \/>\n      Mayor  of  Chennai Municipal Corporation as vacant and consequently, no<br \/>\n      election to the said post can be held  pending  disposal  of  the  writ<br \/>\n      petition.   Registry  is directed to post the Writ Petition No.21056 of<br \/>\n      2002 along with W.P.Nos.19214 and 22365  of  2001  for  final  hearing,<br \/>\n      subject to  part  heard  cases on the 5th of August 2002.  Accordingly,<br \/>\n      the W.P.M.P.No.2 9105 of 2002 in W.P.No.21056 of 2002 is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                        (B.S.R., C.J.) (D.M.,J.)<br \/>\n                                        18.06.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>      sm<\/p>\n<p>                                                W.M.P.No.29105\/2002<br \/>\n                                                        in                              <\/p>\n<p>                                                W.P.No.21056 \/2002  <\/p>\n<p>                                                18.06.2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/06\/2002 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN W.P.M.P.No.29105 of 2002 in W.P.No.21056 of 2002 &#8212;&#8212;- S.Udhayakumar ..Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secy. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - 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\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T14:17:32+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T14:17:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1912,\"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\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\",\"name\":\"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T14:17:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - 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\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T14:17:32+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002","datePublished":"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T14:17:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002"},"wordCount":1912,"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\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002","name":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T14:17:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-udhayakumar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-june-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Udhayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2002"}]},{"@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\/26041","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=26041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}