{"id":46472,"date":"2009-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-25T13:48:51","modified_gmt":"2016-04-25T08:18:51","slug":"babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009<\/div>\n
                            1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                         JODHPUR.\n\n\n\n                        O R D E R\n\n\n\nLRs. of Babu Ram          v.        Union of India & Ors.\n\n\n\n           S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4065\/1998\n           under Article 226 of the Constitution\n           of India.\n\n\n\nDate of Order              :             13th March, 2009\n\n\n\n                      P R E S E N T\n\n\n            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR\n\n\nMr. R.K.Soni, for the petitioners.\nMr. M.S.Godara, for the respondents.\n\n                          ....\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
           After death of original petitioner Shri Babu<\/p>\n
Ram, this petition for writ is prosecuted by his legal<\/p>\n
heirs. The chronology of the facts necessary to be<\/p>\n
noticed is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.      The petitioner was enrolled with Indian Army on<\/p>\n
        28.7.1982;\n<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
2.   At     the     time    of    enrollment         he        was    found<\/p>\n
     medically       fit,     thus,     was       placed        in    “AYE”<\/p>\n
     category;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   His vision at the time of recruitment was of<\/p>\n
     6\/6;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   During       field    duties,    he     suffered      with       Optic<\/p>\n
     Atrophy and Astrocytoma, thus, he was subjected<\/p>\n
     to    surgical       operation     of    head     which         further<\/p>\n
     deteriorated his condition;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   After serving for 11 years, 5 months and 27<\/p>\n
     days    the     petitioner       was    invalided          out    from<\/p>\n
     military service on 24.1.1994 by placing him<\/p>\n
     “EEE”    medical       category       with    100%        disability<\/p>\n
     element;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   The     Chief        Controller        of    Defence            Account<\/p>\n
     (Pension),      (hereinafter          referred       to    as     “CCDA<\/p>\n
     (P)”,        Allahabad      held       the    petitioner            not<\/p>\n
     entitled       for    disability        pension      by     treating<\/p>\n
     invaliding disability neither attributable nor<\/p>\n
     aggravated by military service; and<\/p>\n
7.   The appeal preferred by the petitioner against<\/p>\n
     the decision aforesaid also came to be rejected<\/p>\n
     in the month of February, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
            In the factual background, as stated above,<\/p>\n
this petition for writ was filed on 16.11.1998 with a<\/p>\n
prayer     to     direct         the       respondents             to    grant        the<\/p>\n
petitioner       disability            pension         including          disability<\/p>\n
element and all other benefits of his disability and<\/p>\n
also to carry out a resurvey medical board. Further a<\/p>\n
direction       is    sought       to       provide          proper      treatment\/<\/p>\n
assistance to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The       petitioner            during           pendency         of     this<\/p>\n
petition for writ died on 18.3.2002, thus, by an order<\/p>\n
dated    24.7.2003       the       legal          representatives              of     the<\/p>\n
petitioner, those are his widow and seven daughters,<\/p>\n
were    substituted         as    petitioners                to   pursue       present<\/p>\n
petition for writ.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In the petition for writ, the main contention<\/p>\n
taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the CCDA(P),<\/p>\n
Allahabad       was   having          no        authority         to    declare       the<\/p>\n
petitioner       disentitled            for        disability           pension        by<\/p>\n
taking the invaliding disability neither attributable<\/p>\n
nor    aggravated      by    military            service.         Such    a    finding<\/p>\n
could    have    been   given          only       by     a    competent        medical<\/p>\n
board.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In reply to the writ petition the respondents<\/p>\n
came forward with a case that as a matter of fact the<\/p>\n
decision        of    the        CCDA(P)           was        founded         on      the<\/p>\n
recommendation        made       by     a       competent         medical          board.
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
Alongwith reply to the writ petition the respondents<\/p>\n
have also placed on record a copy of the medical board<\/p>\n
proceedings. As per the documents placed on record, at<\/p>\n
the   first    instance      Colonel   D.K.Sen,   Senior    Adviser<\/p>\n
(Opthalmology), CH (SC) Pune, opined on 13.8.1993 as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “An old case of Rt Parietal high grade III
\n              Astrocytoma (Optd) with hamiparesis left and
\n              “Bilateral optic Atrophy Rt Left”. His ocular
\n              condition has further deteriorated and his
\n              vision in Rt eye is finger is finger counting
\n              at 3′ feet only. Left eye central vision is
\n              6\/12 but he has got gross constriction of
\n              visual field all round. His vision is left
\n              eye in likely to deteriorate further. He is
\n              not considered fit to continue in service.
\n              Recommended to be invalided out of service in
\n              Med Cat EEE.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              An   another     opinion   was   given   by     Major<\/p>\n
P.K.Thakur,        Graded      Specialist      Radiotherapy     on<\/p>\n
19.8.1993 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “This 30 Yrs old serving Sep as MT DVr, is a
\n              case of Rt Purintal Astroctoma gr.III-4 who
\n              presented first in Mar 88 with frontal
\n              headache, bluned vision, SMS 7th n palay and
\n              gr IV Weakness Lt half of body. A CECT done
\n              on 02 Nov 88 revealed a large Rt pariotal SOL
\n              with case effect. Craniotery and debulking
\n              was   does   on  08.11.88   which   confirmed
\n              distopath diagnosis of high grade asfrocytoma
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
           B\/3060-68\/88 and MDTC B\/1269-1274\/88. Post Op
\n           oranial Rt to a dese of 5800 rade\/88
\n           fractiona    delivered   concluding   20.1.89.
\n           Adjuvaat chemethoropy (consisting of VDR + CC
\n           NU   +  precarbasing)   given   at  6   weekly
\n           intarvvol Total aourses given Six, ending Jan\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           90. He has been observed for 12 so in cat CEE
\n           (T), 6 mo in cat CEE(T) and for 2 years in
\n           cat BEE (P).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Presently his general condition is fair.
\n           Systemic exam of chest CVS P\/A is normal. CNS
\n           exam    reveals    normal    HMF.    Bilateral
\n           papillcodoma. VA (a) FC 3, (L) 6\/12 with
\n           severe restiction of visual fields gr IV Lt
\n           hoviporesis pereisty. Pt is ambulant, and
\n           isoluntary covenants are present. Routine
\n           hamogref, urinanalysis, liver function tests
\n           are   normal.   CMR    is   NAD.   No    other
\n           investigation   are    indicated   with    the
\n           persisting Lt homiparesis blindness of Rt eye
\n           and with secorely restricted fiels of the
\n           other eye (which has progressed), after being
\n           observed for 5 years it is Surmiseel, that
\n           these disabilities wile presint if not weresn
\n           further. E. cannot serve as a useful soldier.
\n           In view of the above and conousent with the
\n           opiaiod of dviser opthalmology as obtnined on
\n           13.3.93, it is opined that the patient be
\n           invalided out of service incat EEE.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The medical board opined that disability as a<\/p>\n
consequent to which the petitioner was invalided out<\/p>\n
was not attributable to service during peace or under<\/p>\n
field service conditions it had not been aggravated<\/p>\n
during   the   military   service   and   that   was   also   not
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
connected with service. The relevant portion of the<\/p>\n
opinion of the medical board reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
              “(a)In respect of each disability the Medical
\n              Board on the evidence before it will express
\n              it views as to whether,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (i)It is attributable to service during peace
\n              or under field service conditions; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (ii)It has been aggravated thereby and remain
\n              so; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (iii)It is not connected with service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The Board should state fully the reason in
\n              regard to each disability on which its
\n              opinion is based.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Disability             A             B            C\nATIEA - CCPITY        1 & 2         1 & 2        1 & 2\nBE                      -            -             -\nASTROCYTOMA            NO            NO           Yes\nCADE III IV\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              In respect of each disability shown as
\n              attributable under A, the Board should state
\n              fully, the specific condition and period in
\n              service which caused the disability.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              1 & 2 – N.A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
  Disability         Percentage          Probable        Composite
\n(as numbered             of            duration of       assessment
\n in question        disablement         the degree       (all
\n I, part II)                                of           disabilities)
\n                                       disablement
\nOptic                    80.00%          Two years           100.00%
\nAtrophy                 (Eighty                           (One hundred
\n                       percent)                             percent)
\nGRADE III IV             80.00%
\n                        (Eighty
\n                       percent)
\n377 IUI<\/p>\n
               (Emphasis    given by me.)<\/p>\n
               In rejoinder to the reply the petitioner has<\/p>\n
contested the mode of opinion given by the medical<\/p>\n
board. It is contended that the opinion given by the<\/p>\n
medical board is absolutely laconic as no reason in<\/p>\n
regard    to    each   disability      is   given   to    support      the<\/p>\n
findings. As per counsel for the petitioner the board
\nwas under obligation to state fully the reasons in<\/p>\n
regard to each disability on which its opinion was<\/p>\n
based. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the<\/p>\n
requirement aforesaid as referred in part III of the<\/p>\n
model    form     relating    to   “medical       board    proceedings<\/p>\n
invaliding all ranks”. According to counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner this Court in Laxman Ram v. Union of India<\/p>\n
& Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.834\/2006, decided on<\/p>\n
12.12.2008,       while    considering      the   same    issue,    held<\/p>\n
that the medical board while reaching at a conclusion<\/p>\n
that disability occurred to a defence personnel was<\/p>\n
neither        attributable    nor      aggravated        because        of
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
military    service       is    required           to    assign       reasons    to<\/p>\n
support    such      conclusion       and         if    such     conclusion      is<\/p>\n
without any basis, then that is not required to be<\/p>\n
treated conclusive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, it is stated by counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents that the opinion of the medical<\/p>\n
board is not open to challenge as it is a conclusion<\/p>\n
arrived    by    experts       on    adequate           examination       of    the<\/p>\n
complete medical record of a defence personnel i.e.<\/p>\n
the petitioner in present case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Heard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
            From perusal of the report of the medical<\/p>\n
board,     relevant       portion            of     which       is    quoted     in<\/p>\n
preceding paras, it is apparent that Colonel D.K.Sen,<\/p>\n
Senior Adviser (Opthalmology) opined regarding disease<\/p>\n
of   the   petitioner      but      he       nowhere      stated       that    such<\/p>\n
disease    was       constitutional           in       nature    or    that     was<\/p>\n
neither      attributable            to           military       service        nor<\/p>\n
aggravated       during        military           service.       It     is     also<\/p>\n
pertinent       to     note     that          Colonel        D.K.Sen,         while<\/p>\n
submitting his opinion, specifically averred that the<\/p>\n
condition of the petitioner further deteriorated after<\/p>\n
surgical        operation.          Similarly,            Major       P.K.Thakur<\/p>\n
prescribed      necessary       details            regarding         ailment    and<\/p>\n
disability of the petitioner but he too nowhere stated<\/p>\n
regarding origin of disease.\n<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
             The medical board framed its opinion on basis<\/p>\n
of the comments given by Colonel D.K.Sen and Major<\/p>\n
P.K.Thakur.       While   forming       its    opinion        the   medical<\/p>\n
board has not assigned even a single reason to reach<\/p>\n
at a conclusion that disability of the petitioner was<\/p>\n
neither      attributable      nor        aggravated          because    of<\/p>\n
military service. The medical board gave its opinion<\/p>\n
in most cryptic manner by mentioning “No” or “Yes”.<\/p>\n
Medical board is a body of experts and experts are<\/p>\n
specialist in their subjects with a developed faculty<\/p>\n
of judging and deciding the issues relating to their<\/p>\n
subjects.     They    are    required         to    judge     the   issues<\/p>\n
rightly,     justly,      wisely        and    with     authority.      The<\/p>\n
opinion given by the experts is supposed to be based<\/p>\n
on special knowledge of a subject beyond that of an<\/p>\n
average person. Normal individuals and bodies rely on<\/p>\n
their     opinions     and   also        act       as   per    guidelines<\/p>\n
prescribed by them, therefore, a body of experts bear<\/p>\n
heavy responsibility for giving definite opinion with<\/p>\n
cogent reasons. Such an opinion must be capable to<\/p>\n
express      its     qualified,         technical,          skilled     and<\/p>\n
analytical background. It cannot be and should not be<\/p>\n
in casual and unqualified manner. If opinion of an<\/p>\n
expert is not based on cogent reasons or that contains<\/p>\n
ambiguity, then that is nothing but a conclusion of a<\/p>\n
lay   man.   An    opinion   of    expert       must    disclose      sound<\/p>\n
application of mind to establish its objectivity and<\/p>\n
alliance with the subject.\n<\/p>\n
                                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
               In the present case, no such expertees or<\/p>\n
thorough       consideration          reflects             with     the    medical<\/p>\n
opinion. It was all the more necessary in light of the<\/p>\n
requirement          under    the     model          form    for     prescribing<\/p>\n
medical opinion by stating fully the reasons in regard<\/p>\n
to each disability on which the opinion was based.<\/p>\n
Despite such obligation, the Board has not stated any<\/p>\n
reason to support its finding.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               In view of whatever said above and in light<\/p>\n
of the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxman<\/p>\n
Ram (supra), opinion given by the medical board is not<\/p>\n
at all conclusive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               The     petitioner         served       Indian       Army    for    a<\/p>\n
period    of    about        12    years       and    at    the    time    of     his<\/p>\n
recruitment       he    was       found    absolutely         fit    with    “AYE”<\/p>\n
medical    category.          While   in       active       field    service      he<\/p>\n
suffered with three disabilities, consequently he was<\/p>\n
declared 100% disabled. A specific opinion was also<\/p>\n
given by Colonel D.K.Sen that the condition of the<\/p>\n
petitioner       deteriorated             after        surgery.       There       is<\/p>\n
nothing available on record to reach at the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the disease of the petitioner was constitutional<\/p>\n
by   nature.     Now,       unfortunately            the    petitioner      is    no<\/p>\n
more,     thus,        no     further          medical        examination         is<\/p>\n
possible. In such circumstances, I consider it proper<\/p>\n
to presume that disability suffered by the petitioner
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
was attributable as well as aggravated due to military<\/p>\n
service.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           Consequently, this petition for writ deserves<\/p>\n
acceptance.   Accordingly,   the   same   is   allowed.   The<\/p>\n
denial of the disability element to the petitioner by<\/p>\n
the   CCDA(P),   Allahabad   is    declared    illegal    and,<\/p>\n
therefore, the same is quashed. The respondents are<\/p>\n
directed to allow disability pension to the petitioner<\/p>\n
from the date he was invalided . Petitioner Babu Ram<\/p>\n
has already died, therefore, whatever right accrues as<\/p>\n
a consequent to the directions above, be given to his<\/p>\n
legal representatives.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           No order to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R LRs. of Babu Ram v. Union of India & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4065\/1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nBabu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - 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\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-25T08:18:51+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\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T08:18:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1880,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-25T08:18:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - 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\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-25T08:18:51+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\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T08:18:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009"},"wordCount":1880,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009","name":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-25T08:18:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babu-ram-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-13-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babu Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/46472","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=46472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}