{"id":42991,"date":"2006-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006"},"modified":"2016-11-24T23:53:26","modified_gmt":"2016-11-24T18:23:26","slug":"p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 11\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN    \n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.429 of 2006 \n\nP.Rajamani                     ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Secretary to Government \n   Government of Tamil Nadu\n   Prohibition and Excise Department,\n   Secretariat, Fort St. George,\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2.The District Magistrate and\n   District Collector,\n   Salem District,\n   Salem.                       .. Respondents\n\n\n        Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the\nissuance  of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the\ndetenu Mani alias Manivannan, who is detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982`\nas Goonda at Central Prison, Salem by the  second  respondent  vide  roder  in\nC.M.P.No.5\/Goonda\/C2\/2006   dated   09.02.2006  on  the  file  of  the  second\nrespondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce\nthe body of the detenu and set him at liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.G.Vijayakumar\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran \n                        Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>                (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)<br \/>\n        The  petitioner,  who  is  the  mother  of  the  detenu by name Mani @<br \/>\nManivannan, who is detained as a &#8221;Goonda&#8221; as contemplated under Section  3(1)<br \/>\nof  the  Tamil  Nadu  Prevention  of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug<br \/>\nOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers<br \/>\nand Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act  14  of  1982),  by  the  impugned<br \/>\ndetention order dated 09.02.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Heard  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  as well as learned<br \/>\nAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  At the foremost, learned counsel for the  petitioner,  by  drawing<br \/>\nour  attention  to  the  details  stated  in  paragraph  3  of  the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention, submitted that  though  a  specific  reference  has  been  made  to<br \/>\nKaripatti  Police  Station  Crime  No.410\/2003  and Attur Police Station Crime<br \/>\nNo.468\/2004, the detenu was not supplied with the material, which vitiates the<br \/>\nultimate order of detention.  In this regard, it  is  relevant  to  refer  the<br \/>\nactual  passage  where the detaining authority has referred to all the adverse<br \/>\ncases including the above said two crime numbers, which reads as under:<br \/>\n&#8220;During investigation it was found that the above  persons  were  involved  in<br \/>\nYethapur Police  Station  Crime  No.371\/2005, Karippatty P.S.Cr.  No.410\/2003,<br \/>\n92\/2004, Veeranam P.S.Cr.No.271\/2005, Attur  P.S.Cr.No.468  \/2004  also  apart<br \/>\nfrom the ground case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   It  is the definite case of the petitioner that no materials, not<br \/>\neven a copy of the First  Information  Report  relating  to  Karipatty  Police<br \/>\nStation  Crime  No.410\/2003  and  Attur Police Station Crime No.468\/2 004 were<br \/>\nsupplied to the detenu.    No  doubt,  learned  Additional  Public  prosecutor<br \/>\nbrought to our notice that in the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority,<br \/>\nthere is  a  reference  to those crime numbers.  It is not in dispute that the<br \/>\nparticulars furnished in the affidavit are meant for the  detaining  authority<br \/>\nfor taking  decision.    Merely because there is a reference in the affidavit,<br \/>\nthe detenu is not going to get any assistance in defending his case.  Inasmuch<br \/>\nas, the detaining authority has  heavily  relied  on  all  the  adverse  cases<br \/>\nincluding  Crime  No.410\/2003 and 468\/2004 on the file of the Karipatty Police<br \/>\nStation and Attur Police Station respectively, we are of the view that  it  is<br \/>\nbut proper on the part of the detaining authority to supply materials relating<br \/>\nto  those  crime  numbers to the detenu in order to give him an opportunity to<br \/>\nputforth his representation effectively.  On this ground, we are of  the  view<br \/>\nthat the detention order is liable to be interfered.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   In  addition  to  the same, the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, by drawing our attention to para 5 of the  grounds  of  detention,<br \/>\nhas  submitted  that  though  the  detaining  authority has stated that in the<br \/>\nadverse cases the detenu had filed bail applications and bail was granted,  on<br \/>\nthe date when the detention order was passed viz., on 09.02.2006, no order has<br \/>\nbeen passed.  The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority  has not furnished any bail order except making a general<br \/>\nstatement.  Inasmuch as the detaining authority has very much relied on  those<br \/>\nmaterials  as  found  in  paragraphs  3 and 5, by drawing our attention to the<br \/>\nlatest decision of the Supreme  Court  reported  in  (2006)  2  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nCases(Criminal) 90  (SUNILA JAIN VS.  UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER), the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner contended that non  furnishing  of  those<br \/>\ndetails to  the  detenu  would vitiate the ultimate order of detention.  While<br \/>\nconsidering the similar contention,  the  conclusion  of  Their  Lordships  in<br \/>\nparagraph 12, which are relevant is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The  question as to whether an offence is bailable or not is not a vital fact<br \/>\nwhereupon an order of bail  can  be  passed.    Application  of  mind  to  the<br \/>\naverments  made in a bail application may be relevant where the grounds stated<br \/>\ntherein reveal  certain  facts  which  are  vital  for  passing  an  order  of<br \/>\ndetention.   In a case of such nature, it may be said that the application for<br \/>\nbail  was  necessary  to  be  placed  before  the  detaining   authority   and<br \/>\nnon-furnishing  a  copy  thereof  to  the  detenu  would  vitiate the order of<br \/>\ndetention.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  In the light of the legal position as stated above and in view  of<br \/>\nthe infirmity in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the detention order as explained above,<br \/>\nwe are  of  the  view  that the detention order cannot be sustained.  In these<br \/>\ncircumstances, the detention order is liable to be  quashed  and  accordingly,<br \/>\nthe same is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  Habeas  Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of<br \/>\ndetention is set aside.  The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith<br \/>\nfrom the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>raa<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition<br \/>\nand Excise Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George,<br \/>\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Magistrate<br \/>\nand District Collector,<br \/>\nSalem District, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>(In duplicate for communication to detenu)<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Joint Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nPublic (Law and Order)<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.429 of 2006 P.Rajamani &#8230;Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise [&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-42991","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - 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\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-24T18:23:26+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-24T18:23:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":850,\"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\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\",\"name\":\"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-24T18:23:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - 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\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-24T18:23:26+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-24T18:23:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006"},"wordCount":850,"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\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006","name":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-24T18:23:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-rajamani-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-11-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Rajamani vs The Secretary To Government on 11 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/42991","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=42991"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42991\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42991"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}