{"id":31209,"date":"1970-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970"},"modified":"2016-06-19T14:57:54","modified_gmt":"2016-06-19T09:27:54","slug":"union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 40, \t\t 1971 SCR (1) 791<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOL.  J. N. SINHA  AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/08\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR   40\t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 791\n 1969 SCC  (2) 662\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC2185\t (12)\n F\t    1973 SC 698\t (11)\n R\t    1973 SC1252\t (14)\n RF\t    1975 SC2057\t (8)\n RF\t    1976 SC2433\t (7)\n R\t    1976 SC2581\t (18)\n F\t    1977 SC 854\t (9)\n R\t    1978 SC 597\t (218)\n R\t    1978 SC 851\t (65,66)\n R\t    1980 SC 563\t (16,18,21,22,25,27,31)\n R\t    1981 SC 594\t (5)\n RF\t    1981 SC 818\t (22,29)\n R\t    1984 SC 630\t (4)\n R\t    1985 SC1416\t (99)\n RF\t    1986 SC 555\t (6)\n R\t    1987 SC  65\t (2)\n RF\t    1987 SC 593\t (23)\n RF\t    1987 SC1933\t (10)\n R\t    1989 SC2218\t (5)\n RF\t    1990 SC1004\t (8)\n R\t    1990 SC1368\t (22)\n RF\t    1991 SC 101\t (22,152,261)\n RF\t    1991 SC 564\t (6)\n R\t    1992 SC1020\t (12,16,17,23,24,25,29,31)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India 1950, Arts. 309, 310-Rules made  under\nArt.309-Pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. 310-\t Fundamental\nRule 56(j) embodies pleasure doctrine-Compulsory  refirement\nat age of 50 after a certain number of years of service does\nnot have civil consequences Rules of natural justice  cannot\nbe  invoked  in such case-Rules of natural  justice  operate\nonly in areas not covered by law validly made.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  first  respondent joined the post\tof  Extra  Assistant\nSuperintendent\tin  the\t Survey of India  Service  in  1938.\nLater he was taken into the Class I Service of the Survey of\nIndia  and  rose to the post of Deputy\tDirector.   He\talso\nofficiated  as -Director.  On August 13, 1969 the  President\nof India pleased by an order under Rule 56(j) of the  Funda-\nmental\tRules  to compulsorily retire the  first  respondent\nfrom  Government  service.   No reasons were  given  in\t the\norder.\t The  appellant\t challenged  the  order\t by  a\twrit\npetition  in the High Court. The failure on the part of\t the\nconcerned  authority  to  give\topportunity  to\t the   first\nrespondent  to show cause against his compulsory  retirement\nwas   held  by\tthe  High  Court  to  have  amounted  to   a\ncontravention of the principles of natural justice.  Against\nthe judgment of the High Court the Union of India appealed.\nHELD  : Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules\t nor\ncan they be elevated to the position of fundamental  rights.\nAs observed by this Court in Kralpak's case these rules\t can\noperate\t only in areas not covered by any law validly  made.\nIf a statutory provision can  be read consistently with\t the\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice, the Courts  should  do  so\nbecause\t it must be presumed that the legislatures  and\t the\nstatutory  authorities intend to act in accordance with\t the\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice.  But on the  other  hand  a\nstatutory  provision  either specifically 'or  by  necessary\nimplication  excludes  the  application of any\tor  all\t the\nprinciples  of natural justice then the court cannot  ignore\nthe  mandate of the legislature or the\tstatutory  authority\nand  read  with the concerned provision\t the  principles  of\nnatural justice.  Whether the exercise of a power  conferred\nshould\tbe made in accordance with any of the principles  of\nnatural justice or not depends upon the express words of the\nprovision  conferring  the power, the nature  of  the  power\nconferred,  the\t purpose for which it is conferred  and\t the\neffect of the exercise of the power. [794 G-795 C]\nFundamental  Rule 56(i) does not in terms require  that\t any\nopportunity  should  be given to  the  concerned  Government\nservant\t to show cause against his  compulsory\trequirement.\nIt  says  that the appropriate authority  has  the  absolute\nright to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion\nthat  it  is  in  the public interest to  do  so.   If\tthat\nauthority  bona fide forms that opinion the  correctness  of\nthat  opinion cannot be challenged before courts, though  it\nis open to an aggrieved party to contend that the  requisite\nopinion\t has  not been formed or the decision  is  based  on\ncollateral grounds or that it is an arbitrary decision.\t The\nrespondent  had not challenged the impugned order on any  of\nthese grounds. [795 D-F]\nCompulsory   retirement\t  does\t not   involve\t any   civil\nconsequence.   A  person retired under Rule 56(i)  does\t not\nlose any of the rights acquired\n792\nby  him\t before retirement.  The rule is  not  intended\t for\ntaking\tany  penal action against government  servants.\t  It\nmerely\tembodies one of the facets of the pleasure  doctrine\nembodied  in Art. 310 of the Constitution.  The\t rule  holds\nthe balance between the, rights of the individual government\nservant\t and the interests of the public.  While  a  minimum\nservice\t is  guaranteed\t to  the  government  servant,\t the\ngovernment is given power to energise its machinery and make\nit more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in\t its\nopinion\t should\t not  be there in  public  interest.   Three\nmonths notice is provided to enable the retired employee  to\nfind out other suitable employment. [795 G-796 B]\nOn  the\t above view of the law, namely, that  no  notice  to\nshow-cause was required, the appeal must be allowed.\nT.  G.\tShivacharana Singh v. State of Mysore,\tA.I.R.<\/a>\t1965\nS.C. 280.\nKraipak\t and Ors. v. Union of India, A.I.R.<\/a> 1970, S.C.\t150,\nState of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors.,<\/a>  [1967]\n2 S.C.R. 625 distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1970.
\nAppeal-from  the judgment and order dated December 22,\t1969
\nof the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 746 of 1969.
\nNiren  De,  Attorney-General  and  S.  P.  Nayar,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Sardar\tBahadur, Vishnu Bahadur, and  Yougindra\t Khushalani,
\nfor respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
G. S. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
\nHegde,\tJ. ‘In this appeal by certificate the only  question
\nthat was canvassed before us was as regards the validity  of
\nthe order contained in memorandum No. F. 16-42\/68-S-1, dated
\nAugust 13, 1969 issued by the Government of India,  Ministry
\nof Education and Youth Services, retiring the 1st respondent
\ncompulsorily  from  government service in  exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred under cl. (j) -of Fundamental Rule 56\twith
\neffect from August 14 1969.  That order was attacked  before
\nthe High Court on various grounds.  The High Court  rejected
\nsome  of  those grounds.  It did not find  it  necessary  to
\ndecide\t‘ a few others but accepting the contention  of\t the
\nrespondent  that  in making the order,\tthe  appellant\t-had
\nviolated the principles of natural justice, it held that the
\nimpugned order is invalid The High Court accordingly  issued
\na writ of certiorari quashing that order.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tus the only contention presented for  -our  decision
\nwas  whether  the High Court was right in  holding  that  in
\nmaking\tthe  impugned order the appellant had  violated\t the
\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice.  No  other  contention\t was
\ntaken  before us.  Hence we shall address ourselves only  to
\nthat question.\n<\/p>\n
793<\/span><\/p>\n
Before proceeding to examine the contention above-formulated
\nit  is\tnecessary to set out the material  facts.   The\t 1st
\nrespondent.  herein Col.  J. N. Sinha successfully  competed
\nin the examination held by the Federal Service Commission in
\n1938  for the post of Extra-Assistant Superintendent in\t the
\nSurvey of India Service.  After selection, he was  appointed
\nas   an\t Extra-Assistant  Superintendent.   He\t worked\t  as
\nprobationer  for a period of three years and  thereafter  he
\nwas confirmed in that post in 1941.  During the second world
\nwar,  he Volunteered for active-service in the army and\t was
\ngranted an emergency Commission in the army.  He was granted
\na  regular commission in the army with effect  from  October
\n23, 1942.\n<\/p>\n
In  exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to\tArt.
\n309  of\t the Constitution, the President of  India  made  on
\nAugust\t 17,   1950  rules  called  the\t Survey\t  of   India
\n(Recruitment from Corps of Engineering Officers) Rules, 1950
\nfor regulating the recruitment and conditions of service  of
\npersons appointed from the Corps of Engineering Officers  of
\nthe  Defence  Ministry\tto  the Survey\tof’  India  Class  I
\nService.-  Rule\t 2  of\tthe  said  Rules  provides  for\t the
\nrecruitment  of\t Military Officers to the  Survey  of  India
\nClass  I  Service  and Rule 3 provides\tthat  the  recruited
\nofficers  will\tbe on probation for two years which  may  be
\nextended  by  the Government on the advice of  the  Surveyor
\nGeneral.   The 1st respondent was taken into the  Survey  of
\nIndia  Class  I Service under Rule 2 of the  aforesaid\t1950
\nRules  as  Deputy Superintendent Surveyor with\teffect\tfrom
\nJune  1951.  Thereafter the President of India in  .exercise
\nof the powers under the proviso to Art. 309, made on July 1,
\n1960  the Survey of India Class I (Recruitment) Rules,\t1960
\nfor  regulating the recruitment of Survey of India  Class  I
\nService.   The\t1st  respondent\t was  subsequently  promoted
\nfirstly\t as  Superintending  Surveyor  and  then  as  Deputy
\nDirector.   After sometime he was promoted as  Director\t and
\nlastly\tas Director (Selection Grade).\tThe  last  mentioned
\npromotion  was made with effect from October 27,  1966.\t  On
\nMay   17,   1969,  Fundamental\tRule  56(j)   was   amended.
\nThereafter on August 13, 1969, the Ministry of Education and
\nYouth\tServices  issued  the  impugned\t order.\t   The\t 1st
\nrespondent was given three months pay and allowances in lieu
\nof three months notice prescribed in Fundamental Rule 56(1).
\nThe 1st respondent being aggrieved by that order, challenged
\nthe  validity of the same.  As mentioned earlier,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  accepted his plea.  The Union of India  has  appealed
\nagainst that order.\n<\/p>\n
Fundamental Rule 56(j) reads
\n\t      “Notwithstanding\tanything contained  in\tthis
\n\t      Rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is
\n\t      of  the  opinion\tthat it\t is  in\t the  public
\n\t      interest so to do have the absolute right
\n794<\/span>
\nto retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not
\nless  than three months in writing or three months  pay\t and
\nallowances in lieu of such notice\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i) if he is in Class I or Class II Service or
\n\t      post  the age limit for the purpose of  direct
\n\t      recruitment to which is below 35 years,  after
\n\t      he has attained the age of 50 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  In any other case after he has  attained
\n\t      the age of 5 5 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  nothing in this  clause  shall
\n\t      apply  to a Government servant referred to  in
\n\t      clause  (e) who entered Government service  on
\n\t      or before 23rd July, 1966 and to a  Government
\n\t      servant referred to in clause (f ) .”\n<\/p>\n
The order impugned merely says that in pursuance of cl. 5  6
\n,the  President\t was,  pleased\tto  decide  that  in  public
\ninterest  the 1st respondent should retire  from  government
\nservice\t with effect from August 13, 1969 and that he  would
\nbe  given three months pay and allowances in lieu  of  three
\nmonths\tnotice\tprovided in the said rule.  No\treasons\t are
\ngiven\tfor  compulsorily  retiring  the   1st\t respondent.
\nAdmittedly  no\topportunity was given to him to\t show  cause
\nagainst his compulsory retirement.  The failure on’ the part
\nof the concerned authority to give an opportunity to the 1st
\nrespondent  to show cause against his compulsory  retirement
\nwas   held  by\tthe  High  Court  to  have  amounted  to   a
\ncontravention of the principles of natural justice.
\nThe  validity of Fundamental Rule 56(j) was  not  questioned
\nbefore\tthe High Court nor before us.  Its validity  is\t not
\nopen to question in view of the decision of this Court in T.
\nG. Shivacharana Singh and Ors. v. State of Mysore<\/a>(1).
\nFundamental  Rule 56(j) in terms does not require  that\t any\n<\/p>\n
-opportunity  should be given to the,  concerned  government
\nservant ‘to show cause against his compulsory retirement.  A
\ngovernment  -servant serving under the Union of India  holds
\nhis  office at the pleasure of the President as provided  in
\nArt. 310 of the Constitution.  But this “Pleasure”  doctrine
\nis subject to the rules or law -made under Art. 309 as\twell
\nas  to the conditions prescribed under Art. 311.   Rules  of
\nnatural\t justice  are  not embodied rules nor  can  they  be
\nelevated to the position of fundamental rights.\t As observed
\nby  this Court in Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of<\/a>\t‘   India(2)
\n“the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or
\nto  put\t it negatively to -prevent miscarriage\tof  justice.
\nThese rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law
\nvalidly\t made.\tIn other words they do not supplant the\t law
\nbut supplement it.” It
\n(1) A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 280
\n(2) A. I. R. 1970 ,  S. C. 150.\n<\/p>\n
795<\/span><\/p>\n
is   true  that\t if  a\tstatutory  provision  can  be\tread
\nconsistently  with  the principles of natural  justice.\t the
\ncourts\tshould\tdo so because it must be presumed  that\t the
\nlegislatures and the statutory authorities intend to act  in
\naccordance with the principles of naural justice.  But if on
\nthe other hand a statutory provision either specifically  or
\nby necessary implication excludes the application of any  or
\nall the principles of natural justice then the court  cannot
\nignore\tthe  mandate  of the legislature  or  the  statutory
\nauthority   and\t read  into  the  concerned  provision\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice.\t Whether the exercise  of  a
\npower conferred should be made in accordance with any of the
\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice or  not  depends  upon\t the
\nexpress\t words\tof the provision conferring the\t power,\t the
\nnature\tof the power conferred, the purpose for which it  is
\nconferred \/ and the effect of the exercise of that power.
\nNow  coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule  56(j),
\nit  says  that the appropriate authority  has  the  absolute
\nright to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion
\nthat  it  is  in the public interest to do  so.\t  The  right
\nconferred  on the appropriate authority is an absolute\tone.
\nThat  power  can  be exercised\tsubject\t to  the  conditions
\nmentioned  in the rule.’ one of which is that the  concerned
\nauthority  must\t be  of the opinion that  it  is  in  public
\ninterest  to do so.  If that authority bona fide forms\tthat
\nopinion,   the\tcorrectness  of\t that  opinion\t cannot\t  be
\nchallenged before courts.  It is open to an aggrieved  party
\nto contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or
\nthe decision is based on collateral grounds or that it is an
\narbitrary  decision.   The  1st\t respondent  challenged\t the
\nopinion formed by the government on the ground of mala fide.
\nBut  that ground has failed.  The High Court did not  accept
\nthat  plea.   The  same\t was not  pressed  before  us.\t The
\nimpugned  order\t was  not attacked on the  ground  that\t the
\nrequired  opinion was not formed or that the opinion  formed
\nwas  an\t arbitrary one.\t One of the conditions\tof  the\t 1st
\nrespondent’s  service is that the government can  choose  to
\nretire\thim  any time after he completes fifty years  if  it
\nthinks\tthat it is in public interest to do so.\t Because  of
\nhis compulsory retirement he does not lose any of the rights
\nacquired  by him before retirement.   Compulsory  retirement
\ninvolves  no  civil consequences.  The\taforementioned\trule
\n56(j)  is not intended for taking any penal  action  against
\nthe  government servants.  That rule merely embodies one  of
\nthe facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Art. – 3 1 0
\nof the Constitution.  Various considerations may weigh with,
\nthe   appropriate  authority  while  exercising\t the   power
\nconferred under the rule.  In some cases, the government may
\nfeel  that  a particular post may be more usefully  held  in
\npublic\tinterest by an officer more competent than  the\t one
\nwho  is holding.  It may be that the officer who is  holding
\nthe  post is not inefficient but the  appropriate  authority
\nmay prefer to have a more efficient officer.  It may further
\nbe
\n796<\/span>
\nthat in certain key posts public interest may require that a
\nperson\tof undoubted ability and integrity should be  there.
\nThere  is no denying the fact that in all organizations\t and
\nmore  so in government organizations, there is good deal  of
\ndead  wood.  It is in public interest to chop off the  same.
\nFundamental Rule 56(j) holds the balance between the  rights
\nof  the individual government servant and the  interests  of
\nthe  public.  ‘While a minimum service is guaranteed to\t the
\ngovernment  servant,  the  government  is  given  power\t  to
\nenergise  its  machinery  and  make  it\t more  efficient  by
\ncompulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be
\nthere in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue that a compulsory retirement is bound  to\thave
\nsome  adverse  effect  on  the\tgovernment  servant  who  is
\ncompulsorily retired but then as the rule provides that such
\nretirements  can be made only after the officer attains\t the
\nprescribed  age.  Further a compulsorily retired  government
\nservant does not lose any of the benefits earned by him till
\nthe  date  of  his  retirement.\t  Three\t months’  notice  is
\nprovided  so  as to enable him to find\tout  other  suitable
\nemployment.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion the high Court erred in thinking  that\t the
\ncompulsory  retirement involves civil consequences.  Such  a
\nretirement  does not take away any of the rights  that\thave
\naccrued\t to  the  government servant  because  of  his\tpast
\nservice.  It cannot be said that if the retiring age of\t all
\nor  a  section\tof the government servants is  fixed  at  50
\nyears, the same would involve civil consequences.  Under the
\nexisting  system there is no uniform retirement age for\t all
\ngovernment servants.  The retirement age is fixed not merely
\non  the basis of the interest of the government servant\t but
\nalso depending on the requirements of the society.
\nThe High Court was not justified in seeking support for\t its
\nconclusion  from  the  decision of this Court  in  State  of
\nOrissa\tv.  Dr. (Miss) Binapani<\/a> ‘Dei and ors.(1) and  A.  K.
\nKrailpak v. Union of India(‘).\n<\/p>\n
In  Binapani Dei’s case(‘) Dr. Binapani Dei’s date of  birth
\nwas  refixed  by the government without\t giving\t her  proper
\nopportunity  to show that the enquiry officer’s\t report\t was
\nnot  correct.\tIt is under those circumstances\t this  Court
\nheld that the order refixing the date of birth was  vitiated
\nfor  failure  to  comply  with\tthe  principles\t of  natural
\njustice.   Therein the impugned order took away some of\t the
\nexisting rights of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
In  Krapak’s  case(‘),\ta  committee  consisting  of   Chief
\nConservator of, Forest, Kashmir and others was appointed  to
\nrecommend names of the officers from Kashmir Forest  Service
\nfor
\n(1) [1967] 2 S. C. R. 625.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150.\n<\/p>\n
797<\/span><\/p>\n
being  selected for the Indian, Forest Service.\t  The  Chief
\nConservator  of Forests, Kashmir was one of  the  candidates
\nfor selection.\tFurther it was established therein that some
\nof the officers who competed with him had earlier challenged
\nhis  seniority\tand consequently his right to be  the  Chief
\nConservator  and  that\tdispute was  pending.\tUnder  those
\ncircumstances this Court held that there -was  contravention
\nof the principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons mentioned above, we are unable to agree with
\nthe  conclusion reached by the High Court that the  impugned
\norder  is  invalid.  We accordingly allow this\tappeal,\t set
\naside the judgment and decree of the High Court and  dismiss
\nthe writ petition.  In the circumstances of the case we make
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[The Court by order dated November 18, 1970 and January\t 19,
\n1971  on an application for review filed by  the  respondent
\nvacated\t its order dismissing the writ\tpetition.   Instead,
\nthe proceedings were remanded to the High Court for decision
\non  such points as were not, dealt with and decided  in\t the
\njudgment of that court.\t Ed.]
\nG.C.\t   Appeal allowed.  Proceedings remanded.\n<\/p>\n
798<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 40, 1971 SCR (1) 791 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: COL. J. N. SINHA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/08\/1970 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. […]<\/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-31209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-19T09:27:54+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=\"15 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-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T09:27:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2308,\"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-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-19T09:27:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970\"}]},{\"@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 vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-19T09:27:54+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970","datePublished":"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T09:27:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970"},"wordCount":2308,"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-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970","name":"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-19T09:27:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-col-j-n-sinha-and-anr-on-12-august-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970"}]},{"@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\/31209","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=31209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}