{"id":27436,"date":"2008-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-17T16:12:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-17T10:42:12","slug":"union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2668 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India and Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRajesh Vyas\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2668 OF 2002<br \/>\n(With C.A. No 2669, 2670, 2671 and 2672 of 2002)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThese five appeals have a common matrix in the<br \/>\njudgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at<br \/>\nJodhpur dated 26.9.2000. Eight Special Appeals were filed by<br \/>\nthe Union of India and Others under Section 18 of the<br \/>\nRajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;Ordinance&#8217;). Challenge in the Special Appeals was to the order<br \/>\npassed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowing<br \/>\nthe writ petitions filed. It was held that the dispute in writ<br \/>\npetitions was squarely covered in favour of the writ petitioners<br \/>\nby a judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/33603\/\">Union of India and Ors. v.<br \/>\nCorporal A.K. Bakshi and Anr.<\/a> (1996 (3) SCC 65).  The High<br \/>\nCourt by the common impugned judgment upheld the view of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge in four cases and in two cases held<br \/>\nthat the appeals filed by the Union of India deserved to be<br \/>\nallowed. In four cases filed by the Union of India before this<br \/>\nCourt, the Division Bench upheld the view of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and held that the order was passed in clear<br \/>\nviolation of the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIn the said appeals, stand of the Union of India is that<br \/>\nshow cause notice was issued to which reply was furnished by<br \/>\nthe respondent in each case and after consideration of the<br \/>\nsame, the order of discharge was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIn the two appeals, which were decided in favour of the<br \/>\nUnion of India it was held that show cause notice was duly<br \/>\nissued and there was no reply.  Against one such order Civil<br \/>\nAppeal No.2670 of 2002 has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant-Union of India<br \/>\nsubmitted that the original records were produced before the<br \/>\nHigh Court. They clearly indicate that show cause notice was<br \/>\nissued which fact was not disputed by the respondents. The<br \/>\nfact that each of such respondents had replied is also not<br \/>\ndisputed.  It is the stand of the Union of India that both<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge and the Division Bench went wrong in<br \/>\nholding that without consideration of the replies the order of<br \/>\ndischarge had been passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn one of the appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2668 of 2002<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order<br \/>\nof discharge does not indicate any consideration of the show<br \/>\ncause notice reply. In the other three cases, there is no<br \/>\nappearance on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn appeal filed by Santosh Singh i.e. Civil Appeal No.<br \/>\n2670 of 2002 the High Court categorically found that show<br \/>\ncause notice was not responded to. \tThere is no appearance<br \/>\non behalf of the appellant when the matter was called.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIt appears that the Habitual Offenders&#8217; Policy was<br \/>\nformulated as a result of a project study on offences of<br \/>\n&#8216;absence without leave&#8217; and other offences committed by<br \/>\nAirmen made by the Institute of Defence Management, which<br \/>\nbrought out the salient features regarding the existence of<br \/>\nhabitual offenders amongst Airmen in Indian Air Force. It was<br \/>\nfound that there was a specific hard core group of airmen in<br \/>\nthe Air Force who have been contributing regularly and<br \/>\npredominantly to the annual offence statistics in the Air Force,<br \/>\nyear after year. This group of Airmen have been a strong<br \/>\nsource of adverse influence on the general discipline of other<br \/>\nAirmen in the service. Some adverse effects noticed were as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tserious adverse effect and influence on the general<br \/>\nmorale and discipline, especially on the young<br \/>\nairmen joining various units from the training<br \/>\ncenters.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tUnit level administration was kept pre-occupied<br \/>\nwith these chronic in discipline cases impinging on<br \/>\ntime which was otherwise required for constructive<br \/>\nactivity.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)\tVery often, at some stage or the other, airmen from<br \/>\nthis group were found to commit serious offences<br \/>\nnot only within but also outside the Air Force,<br \/>\nthereby tarnishing the image of the service, and\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)\tInvariably many of these airmen were not<br \/>\nperforming well in their trades also.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tHence, their overall contribution to the service was<br \/>\nnegligible. By passage of time, some of these airmen have been<br \/>\npromoted and have attained the ranks of a senior Non-<br \/>\nCommissioned Officers&#8217; and thus, such senior staff were very<br \/>\npoor example to others particularly the younger Airmen. Thus,<br \/>\nhaving regard to the existence of habitual offenders amongst<br \/>\nthe airmen and the adverse effects of their repetitive acts of<br \/>\nindiscipline which undermined the general discipline and<br \/>\nadministration of the Indian Air Force. Air Head quarters<br \/>\ndecided to lay down the Habitual Offenders Policy for<br \/>\ndischarging such Airman prescribing the guidelines to deal<br \/>\nfirmly with such habitual offenders. In paragraph 4 of the said<br \/>\npolicy it was prescribed that those airmen; who met any one of<br \/>\nthe following individual criteria were to be treated as habitual<br \/>\noffenders and considered for discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii)<br \/>\nof the Air Force Rules, 1969 (in short the &#8220;Rules&#8221;):\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tTotal number of punishment entries six<br \/>\nand above (including Red and Black ink<br \/>\nentries);\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tFour Red ink punishment entries; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)   Four punishment entries (Red and Black<br \/>\nink entries includes) for repeated commission<br \/>\nof any one specific type of offence such as dis-<br \/>\nobedience, insubordination, AWL, breaking out<br \/>\nof camp, offence involving alcohol, mess<br \/>\nindiscipline, use of abusive\/threatening<br \/>\nlanguage.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tThat  the red ink entries are for punishment higher in the<br \/>\nscale of the punishment under Section 82 of the Air Force Act,<br \/>\n1982 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;) while the black ink entries are for<br \/>\npunishment lower in scale in Section 82. The detailed actions<br \/>\nand procedure which were required to be followed to<br \/>\nimplement the policy for discharge are given in the appendix to<br \/>\nthe policy which was known as the &#8220;Procedure for Discharge&#8221;.<br \/>\nHabitual offenders who were not found suitable for retention<br \/>\nin service were initially placed in two categories, (a) habitual<br \/>\noffenders who have already crossed the criteria as laid down<br \/>\nvide paragraph 4 (a), (b) and (c) of the policy guidelines, and (b)<br \/>\noffenders who are on the threshold. Warning had to be given<br \/>\nas per the procedure to an Airman who was on the threshold<br \/>\nand he was called upon to improve his conduct and behaviour<br \/>\nand that in case he committed any further offence, and came<br \/>\nwithin the purview of an habitual offender he would be liable<br \/>\nto be discharged. In case he commits any further offence then<br \/>\nwould be given a show cause notice and, thereafter discharge<br \/>\nwas to be ordered by the competent authority under Rule<br \/>\n15(2)(g)(ii).\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tAs noted above, policy for discharge of habitual offender<br \/>\nwas considered by this Court in A.K. Bakshi&#8217;s case (supra).<br \/>\nAfter analyzing the policy, it was observed that the whole idea<br \/>\nunderlying the policy was to weed out the indisciplined<br \/>\npersonnel from the force. It was further observed that it was a<br \/>\ndischarge simplicitor and as such it cannot be held as<br \/>\ntermination of service by way of punishment for misconduct.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe materials relevant for the consideration of the reply<br \/>\ngiven by the concerned officials are part of the record. There is<br \/>\nno dispute that the original records were produced before the<br \/>\nHigh Court. Though in the discharge order there is no specific<br \/>\nreference to the consideration by the appropriate authority, as<br \/>\na matter of fact the reply in each case was considered. After<br \/>\ndue consideration of the reply, the recommendation was that<br \/>\nthe AOP may be pleased to approve the discharge of concerned<br \/>\nofficials as unsuitable for retention in service. Various officials<br \/>\nconsidered the matter and the AOP accepted the<br \/>\nrecommendation for discharge under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the<br \/>\nRules.  Thereafter, discharge order was passed where it is<br \/>\ncategorically noted that the competent authority i.e. AOP was<br \/>\npleased to accord the approval of discharge of the concerned<br \/>\nofficials from service. In the discharge order it is also stated<br \/>\nthat instructions on discharge of a airman as contained in<br \/>\nAFO 291\/77, 40\/89  and the letter of the Air Force Records<br \/>\nOffice dated 28.11.1991 were strictly complied with. Above<br \/>\nbeing the position, the learned Single Judge and the Division<br \/>\nBench were wrong in holding that the reply given to the show<br \/>\ncause notice was not considered. The factual scenario is to the<br \/>\ncontrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tAbove being the position, the judgments of the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge and the Division Bench cannot be maintained<br \/>\nand are set aside in each case.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tSo far as Civil Appeal No.2670 of 2002 is concerned there<br \/>\nis no appearance on behalf of the appellant when the matter<br \/>\nwas called. In fact, he had filed an affidavit in response to the<br \/>\nshow cause notice and he had stated that he had no<br \/>\nexplanation to offer and that he had no clarification. That<br \/>\nbeing so, learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing his<br \/>\nwrit petition. The Division Bench of the High Court was<br \/>\njustified in allowing the Special Appeal so far as he is<br \/>\nconcerned. In his case the order of the High Court needs no<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tIn the ultimate result, Civil Appeal No.2670 of 2002 is<br \/>\ndismissed while the other appeals are allowed. There shall be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2668 of 2002 PETITIONER: Union of India and Ors RESPONDENT: Rajesh Vyas DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM JUDGMENT: J [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-17T10:42:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T10:42:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1547,\"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\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-17T10:42:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - 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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-17T10:42:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T10:42:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008"},"wordCount":1547,"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\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008","name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-17T10:42:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-ors-vs-rajesh-vyas-on-7-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Ors vs Rajesh Vyas on 7 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/27436","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=27436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}