{"id":53267,"date":"1969-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969"},"modified":"2016-05-02T18:33:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T13:03:04","slug":"railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","title":{"rendered":"Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 966, \t\t 1969 SCR (3) 548<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTING THE UNION OFINDIA, NEW DELHI AND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNIRANJAN SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/02\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  966\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 548\n 1969 SCC  (1) 502\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1972 SC1792\t (14)\n RF\t    1972 SC1975\t (9)\n R\t    1973 SC  87\t (32)\n F\t    1975 SC2151\t (22)\n F\t    1989 SC1185\t (25)\n RF\t    1989 SC1854\t (20)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of  India,  Art.\t226-Whether  High  Court  in\nexercise  of  certiorari  jurisdiction\tcan  interfere\twith\nfinding\t of disciplinary authority-Art. 19(1) (a),  (b)\t (c)\nand   (3)-If   violated\t by  General  Manager\tof   Railway\nprohibiting meetings of employees on Railway premises.\nRemoval-Order  of-Based on a number of grounds of which\t one\nnot sustainable-If order liable to be struck down.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t was a permanent employee  of  the  Northern\nRailway\t and  was served with a charge\tsheet  in  November,\n1956,  which  levelled\ttwo charges  against  him.   He\t was\naccused of having been instrumental in compelling the  shut-\ndown  of  an  air  compressor and,  in\tcontravention  of  a\ndirection given by the General Manager, Northern Railway, on\nJune  19,  1956, of having addressed a\tnumber\tof  meetings\nwithin\tthe  Railway premises.\tAn enquiry  committee  after\ninvestigating  the charges came to the' conclusion that\t the\nrespondent  was not proved beyond all reasonable  doubt\t but\nthat  the 'respondent was guilty of the second charge.\t The\nGeneral\t Manager, who was the disciplinary authority,  after\nexamining the report of the committee, accepted its findings\non  the second charge but differing from its  conclusion  on\nthe first charge tentatively came to the conclusion that the\nrespondent  was\t guilty of that charge as well.\t  After\t the\nissue  of  a  show-cause notice to the\trespondent  and\t the\n'rejection of his explanation, the General Manager directed,\nby  an\torder  of August 20, 1957, that\t the  respondent  be\nremoved from service.\nThe  respondent\t challenged the order of his removal by\t a\nwrit petition.\tThe petition was allowed and an appeal to  a\nDivision Bench was dismissed. The questions for decision  in\nthe appeal to this Court were (i) whether the High Court was\nwithin its jurisdiction in the exercise of its powers  under\nArt.  226  of the Constitution to set aside  the  conclusion\nreached\t by  the General Manager on the first  charge;\t(ii)\nwhether the appellate court was right in its view that if an\norder  of removal is based on number of grounds and  one  or\nmore  of  those grounds are found to be\t unsustainable,\t the\norder  is  liable to be struck down; and (iii)\twhether\t the\ndirection issued by the General Manager on June 19, 1956 was\nviolative of Art. 19(1) (a) to (c) and (3).\nIt was contended on behalf of the appellant that the  rights\nguaranteed  under Art. 19(1) (a), (b) & (c)  are  inviolable\nand they cannot be interfered with except in accordance with\nsub-articles  2, 3 & 4 of Art. 19; that the Railway  workers\nhad  a right to assembly in any place they chose  and  could\nexpress\t their views so long they did not disturb  the\twork\ngoing on in the premises.\nHELD : Allowing the appeal and dismissing the writ  petition\n: (i) The High Court exceeded its powers in interfering with\nthe findings of the General Manager on the first charge.  It\nwas open to the General Manager to accept the evidence which\nthe, Enquiry Committee had rejected on the first charge\t and\nhe was not bound by the conclusions reached by the corn-\n549\nmittee. On  the facts in the present case it could not\tbe\nsaid that the finding ofthe disciplinary authority was\tnot\nsupported  by  any  evidence nor could it be  said  that  no\nreasonable person could have reached such a finding.   Hence\nthe  conclusion reached by the disciplinary  authority\tmust\nprevail and the High Court in the exercise of its certiorari\njurisdiction could not have interfered with its\t conclusion.\n[552 A-C]\nUnion  of  India v. H. C.  Goel,<\/a> [1964] 4 S.C.R.  718;\tSyed\nYakoob v. K.   S.  Radhakrishnan & Ors.,<\/a> [1964] 5 S.C.R. 64;\nrelied on.\n(ii)There   was\t no  force  in\tthe  contention\t that\tthe\npunishment  imposed  could not be sustained if it  was\theld\nthat  one  of the two charges on the basis of which  it\t was\nimposed,  was  unsustainable.  If the order  in\t an  enquiry\nunder\tArt.  311  can\tbe  supported  on  any\tfinding\t  as\nsubstantial  misdemeanor for which the punishment    imposed\ncan  lawfully be impose it is not for the Court to  consider\nwhether\t that  ground  alone would  have  weighed  with\t the\nauthority in imposing the punishment in question [552 G]\nState  of  Orissa v. Bidyabhan Mohapatra,<\/a> [1962]  Suppl.   1\nS.C.R. 648; followed.\n(iii)The  General Manager's direction  prohibiting  the\nholding\t of  meetings within the Railway  premises  was\t not\nviolative of Art. 19(1).\nThe  Northern  Railway\twas the owner  of  the\tpremises  in\nquestion and was entitled to enjoy its property in the\tsame\nmanner\tas  any\t private individual  subject  to  only\tsuch\nrestriction  as\t the law or the usage, may  place  on  them.\nThere is no 'fundamental right for any one to hold  meetings\nin  Government\tpremises.  Freedom of  speech,\tfreedom,  to\nassemble peacefully and the freedom to form Associations  or\nUnions\tdoes not mean that these rights can be exercised  by\nthe citizens in whatever place they please.  The exercise of\nthose  freedoms will come to an end as soon as the right  of\nsome  one  else\t to hold his property  intervenes.   Such  a\nlimitation is inherent in the exercise of those rights.\t The\nvalidity of that limitation is not to be judged by the tests\nprescribed by Sub-Arts. (2) and (3) of Art. 19. [554 D]\nMarsh  v. Alabama, 90 Law Edn.\tP. 265, Tucker v.  State  of\nTexas. 90 Law Edn. p. 274); distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1206 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tfrom the judgment and order dated, January 14,\t1963
\nof  the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.\t36-D
\nof 1962.\n<\/p>\n
G.  R.\tRajagopaul, A. S. Nanbiar and s. P. Nayar,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
R. K.  Garg and S. C. Agarwal, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde,\tJ This appeal was brought after obtaining  from\t the
\nHigh Court a certificate under Art. 132 and 133(1)(c) of the
\nConstitution  before  formulating  the\tpoints\tarising\t for
\ndecision,  it would be convenient to set out  the  necessary
\nfacts.\n<\/p>\n
550<\/span><\/p>\n
The respondent was holding a permanent post in the  Northern
\nRailway.  He was a Trade Union worker.\tOn November 7,\t1956
\na  charge-sheet\t was  served on him  levelling\ttwo  charges
\nagainst\t him.\tUnder the first charge, he  was\t accused  of
\nhaving\tbeen instrumental in compelling the  air  compressor
\nbeing  shut down at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956.   Under
\nthe  second charge he was accused of having contravened\t the
\ndirection given by the General Manager, Northern Railway  as
\nper  his  letter  No. 961\/E\/O(Evi) dated June  19,  1956  by
\naddressing meetings with in the railway premises on June 23,
\n1956,  June 25, 1956, July 24, 1956, July 25, 1956 and\tJuly
\n27, 1956.  On these charges he was called upon to show-cause
\nwhy he should not be removed from service under Rule 1708 of
\nthe  Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.  1\tor  punished
\nwith  any  lesser penalties specified in Rule  1702.   After
\nreceiving his explanation an enquiry committee consisting of
\nthree  officers was appointed to enquire into  the  charges.
\nThe  said  committee came to the conclusion that  the  first
\ncharge was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt but he was
\nguilty\tof  the second,charge.\tThe  Disciplinary  Authority
\ni.e.  the  General  Manager remitted the case  back  to\t the
\nenquiry\t committee  for\t submitting  a\tfresh  report  after
\nexamining the witnesses mentioned in his order.\t Even  after
\nexamining  those witnesses the enquiry committee adhered  to
\nits earlier conclusions.  After examining the reports of the
\nenquiry\t committee, the General Manager as per his order  of
\nMay  25, 1957 accepted its finding on the second charge\t but
\ndiffering   from  its  conclusion  on  the   first   charge-
\ntentatively  came to the conclusion that the respondent\t was
\nguilty\tof  that  charge as well.  As a\t result\t thereof  he
\nordered\t the issue of ‘a notice to the respondent  to  show-
\ncause  why  he\tshould not be  removed\tfrom  service.\t The
\nrespondent  submitted  his  exPlanation\t to  the  show-cause
\nnotice.\t The General Manager did not accept his\t explanation
\nand  by his order of August 20, 1957 be ,directed  that\t the
\nrespondent   be\t removed  from\tservice.    The\t  respondent
\nchallenged that decision before the High Court of Punjab  by
\nmeans of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
\nThe  single judge of the High Court who heard  the  petition
\nopined that the General Manager was not right in holding  on
\nthe material on record that the first charge is\t established
\nand on the second charge he held that the General  Manager’s
\ndirection  as  per his letter of June 19, 1956\tis  void  as
\nbeing  violative  of  Art. 19(1) of  the  Constitution.\t  On
\nappeal\tthe  appellate court upheld the\t conclusion  of\t the
\nlearned\t single judge on the first charge but it was  unable
\nto accept his finding that the order of the General  Manager
\nof  June  19,  1956  was violative  of\tArt.  19(1)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tAR the same it affirmed the decision of\t the
\nlearned single judge with these observations
\n\t      “It is by now a generally recognised principle
\n\t      that  where  an  order such  as  an  order of
\n\t      detention or removal
\n\t      551<\/span>
\n\t      from service is based on a number of  grounds,
\n\t      and one or more of these grounds disappear  it
\n\t      becomes difficult to uphold the order when  it
\n\t      is  not clear to what extent it was  based  on
\n\t      the ground found to be bad.”\n<\/p>\n
The  findings  of the learned single judge as  well  as\t the
\njudges\tof the appellate court were challenged before us  by
\nthe appellant.\tIt was urged on its behalf that the  finding
\nof  the General Manager on the first charge being a  finding
\nof fact, the same not having been held either not  supported
\nby any evidence. or as perverse, it was not open to the High
\nCourt to review the evidence afresh and come to a conclusion
\nof  its\t own.  It was further urged on its behalf  that\t the
\nopinion\t of the Appellate Court that if one of\tthe  several
\ncharges\t on  the basis of which a punishment is\t imposed  is
\nheld  to be unsustainable, the punishment imposed should  be
\nset  aside  as\tit is not known\t whether  the  authority  in
\nquestion would have imposed the impugned punishment  without
\nthat charge having been established, does not represent\t the
\ncorrect\t legal\tposition as expounded by  this\tCourt.\t The
\nlearned\t Counsel for the respondent not only  supported\t the
\nconclusions  of\t the  appellate\t court,\t he  also   strongly
\ncommended  for\tour acceptance the finding- of\tthe  learned
\nsingle\tjudge that General Manager’s direction contained  in
\nhis letter- of June 19, 1956 was violative of Art. 19(1) (a)
\nto (c).\n<\/p>\n
The questions that arise for decision in this appeal are (1)
\nwhether\t the High Court was within its jurisdiction  in\t the
\nexercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution to
\nset  aside the conclusion reached by the General Manager  on
\nthe  first charge, (2) whether the direction issued  by\t the
\nGeneral Manager on June 19, 1956 is violative of Art.  19(1)
\na  to (c) and (3) whether the appellate court was  right  in
\nits  view that if an order of removal is based on number  of
\ngrounds\t and  one or more of those grounds are found  to  be
\nunsustainable, the order is liable to be struck down.
\nNow coming to the first charge, we may first set out the un-
\ndisputed  facts.   On May 31, 1956, the Union of  which\t the
\nrespondent  was the Vice-President declared a token  strike.
\nThe strike in question was declared by the respondent and he
\ntook  a leading part in it.  During the time of\t the  strike
\nthe  compressor was not worked.\t The enquiry committee\tcame
\nto the conclusion and that conclusion was neither challenged
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court  nor before  this  Court  that\t the
\ncompressor  driver must have started the compressor  in\t the
\nEast Compressor House at 8-00 hrs. and there must have\tbeen
\ncertain\t circumstances which made the driver to shut it\t off
\nat 8-15 hrs.  The only question for decision is whether\t the
\nrespondent  was responsible for shutting it off.   Two\twit-
\nnesses namely Subrati, the compressor Driver and  Rameshwar,
\nhis  Assistant\temphatically  stated-  before  the   enquiry
\ncommittee
\n552<\/span>
\nthat  it was the respondent who led a group of strikers\t and
\ncompelled  them to close down the compressor.\tThe  enquiry
\ncommittee felt that their evidence cannot be accepted at its
\nface value as they were not able to name any other person in
\nthe  group.  But the General Manager did not agree with\t the
\nenquiry\t on that point.\t He fully accepted: their  evidence.
\nIt  was\t open to the General Manager to do so.\tHe  was\t not
\nbound  by the conclusions reached by the enquiry  committee,
\nsee  Union  of India v. H. C. Goel<\/a>(1).\tThis is not  a\tcase
\nwhere  it can be said that the finding of  the\tDisciplinary
\nAuthority  is  not supported by any evidence nor can  it  be
\nsaid  that  no reasonable person could have reached  such  a
\nfinding.   Hence the conclusion reached by the\tDisciplinary
\nAuthority should prevail and the High Court in the  exercise
\nof  its\t Certiorari jurisdiction could not  have  interfered
\nwith its conclusion, see Syed Yakoob v. K. S.  Radhakrishnan
\nand Ors.<\/a>(2).\n<\/p>\n
It was next contended that in arriving at his conclusion  on
\nthe  first  charge  the General Manager had  relied  on\t the
\nhearsay evidence given by De Mellow and hence his conclusion
\nis vitiated.  The evidence of the witnesses examined  during
\nthe  enquiry is not before us.\tHence it is not possible  to
\naccept the contention that De Mellow’s evidence was hearsay.
\nIn  this  view it is not necessary to go into  the  question
\nwhether\t hearsay  evidence  can be relied ow at\t all  in  an
\nenquiry\t under Art. 311 and if so within what limits.\tSome
\nof the inferences drawn by the General Manager were objected
\nto  by the learned Counsel for the respondent.\tThey  appear
\nto be inferences of fact, evidently drawn from the  material
\nbefore\thim and as such cannot be properly objected to.\t  It
\nWas open to him to draw those inferences.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  reasons mentioned above, we hold  that  the$\tHigh
\nCourt exceeded its powers in interfering with the finding of
\nthe General Manager on the first charge.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe take up for consideration point No. 2  formulated
\nabove,\tit would be convenient to deal with point No. 3.  It
\nwas  not disputed before us that the first  charge  levelled
\nagainst the respondent is a serious charge and it would have
\nbeen  appropriate  for\tthe General Manager  to\t remove\t the
\nrespondent from service on the basis of his finding on\tthat
\ncharge.\t  But  we were told that we cannot assume  that\t the
\nGeneral Manager would have inflicted that punishment  solely
\non  the\t basis\tof that charge and  consequently  we  cannot
\nsustain\t the punishment imposed if we hold that one  of\t the
\ntwo  charges  on  the  basis of\t which\tit  was\t imposed  is
\nunsustainable.\t This contention cannot be accepted in\tview
\nof  the\t decision  of  this Court  in  State  of  Orissa  v.
\nBidyabhan Mohapatra<\/a>(3) wherein it was held that if the order
\nin an enquiry under Art. 311 can be supported on any finding
\nas substantial mis-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t     (2)[1964] 5 S.C.R. 64.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1964] 4 S.C.R. 718.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 648.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    553<\/span><\/p>\n
demeanour  for which the punishment imposed can lawfully  be
\nunposed\t it  is not for the Court to consider  whether\tthat
\nground\talone  would  have’ weighed with  the  authority  in
\nimposing the punishment in question.\n<\/p>\n
Now  we come to the second charge.  In order to examine\t the
\ncontentions  of\t Mr.  Garg,  the  learned  Counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent relatingto  that charge, it is necessary to\tset
\nout the circular issued by theGeneral  Manager on  June
\n19, 1956.  That was a circular issuedto all the heads  of
\nthe departments.  It reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  has\tbeen  brought to notice\t that  in  a
\n\t      number  of cases railway employees  have\theld
\n\t      meetings\tinside\trailway\t premises  such\t  as
\n\t      inside  workshops,  inside stores\t depots\t and
\n\t      within  office compounds.\t It may\t be  pointed
\n\t      out   that   this\t  practice   is\t   extremely
\n\t      objectionable and has to be stopped forthwith.
\n\t      AR staff may be warned that if any one of them
\n\t      is  found\t organising or attending  a  meeting
\n\t      inside railway premises or at places of  work,
\n\t      he  will\trender\thimself\t liable\t to   severe
\n\t      disciplinary action as such action on his part
\n\t      will  amount  to\tmisconduct  arising  out  of
\n\t      violation\t  of  administrative   instructions.
\n\t      Meetings\tof  workers  can  be  held  on\topen
\n\t      grounds  away’  from places of work  with\t the
\n\t      permission   of\tthe   railway\t authorities
\n\t      concerned\t if  such open grounds\tfall  within
\n\t      railway boundary.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      You  are\tto  note  these\t instructions\tvery
\n\t      carefully\t  and\tto   ensure   their   strict
\n\t      compliance in future.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Please acknowledge receipt.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The direction with which we are concerned in this appeal  is
\nthat  which  prohibits the holding of  meetings\t within\t the
\nrailway\t premises  including open grounds  forming  part  of
\nthose  premises.   That\t direction  does  not  deprive.\t the
\nworkers\t any of the freedoms guaranteed to  them  under-Art.
\n19(1).\tIt merely prohibits them   from\t exercising  any  of
\nthem within the railway premises. What is    prohibited\t  is
\nthe holding of meetings for any purpose within thethe
\nrailway\t premises. The question is whether such a  direction
\nis violative-of Art. 19(1) ?  In the instant casewe\tare
\nconcerned  with\t the  meetings held outside  the  main\ttime
\noffice and it was not denied that that place formed part  of
\nthe railway premises.\n<\/p>\n
It  was strenuously urged on behalf of the  respondent\tthat
\nthe rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (a), (b) and (c)\t are
\ninviolable  and they cannot be interfered with excepting  in
\naccordance  with  sub-Arts.  2, 3 and 4\t of  the  said\tArt.
\nAccording  to Mr. Garg the railway workers have a  right  to
\nassemble  in  any place they choose and give  expression  to
\ntheir views so long as they do not disturb the work going on
\nin  the premises and that right is guaranteed to them  under
\nour Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
554<\/span><\/p>\n
It  was not disputed that the Northern Railway is the  owner
\nof  the\t premises  in question.\t The fact  that\t the  Indian
\nRailways are State Undertakings does not affect their  right
\nto enjoy their properties in the same manner as any  private
\nindividual  may do subject only to such restrictions as\t the
\nlaw or the usage may place on the.  Hence unless it is shown
\nthat  either under law or because of some usage the  railway
\nservants  have\ta right to hold their  meetings\t in  railway
\npremises,  we  see no basis for objecting to  the  direction
\ngiven by the General Manager.  There is no fundamental right
\nfor  anyone to hold meetings in government premises.  If  it
\nis otherwise there is bound to be chaos in our offices.\t The
\nfact  that  those who work in a public office can  go  there
\ndoes  not confer on them the right of holding a\t meeting  at
\nthat  office even if it be the, most convenient place to  do
\nso.\n<\/p>\n
It   is\t true  that  the  freedoms  guaranteed\t under\t our
\nConstitution are very valuable freedoms and this Court would
\nresist\tabridging the ambit of those freedoms except to\t the
\nextent\tpermitted  by the Constitution.\t The fact  that\t the
\ncitizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom  to
\nassemble  peaceably  and freedom to  form-  associations  or
\nunions\tdoes not mean that they can exercise those  freedoms
\nin  whatever  place  they please.   The\t exercise  of  those
\nfreedoms will come to an end as soon as the ‘right of  some-
\none else to hold his property intervenes.  Such a limitation
\nis inherent in the exercise of those ‘rights.  The  validity
\nof  that  limitation  is  not to  be  judged  by  the  tests
\nprescribed  by Sub-Arts. (2) and (3) of Art. 19.   In  other
\nwords  the  contents of the freedoms guaranteed\t under\tcls.\n<\/p>\n
(a),  (b)  and\t(c), the only freedoms\twith  which  we\t are
\nconcerned  in  this  appeal,.do not  include  the  right  to
\nexercise them in the properties belonging to others.  If Mr.
\nGarg  is  right in his contentions then a  citizen  of\tthis
\ncountry in the exercise of his right under cls. (d) and\t (e)
\nof Art. 19(1) could move about freely in a public-office  or
\neven  reside  there unless there exists\t some  law  imposing
\nreasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights.
\nIn support of his contention Mr. Garg strongly relied on the
\ndecisions  of the Supreme Court of United States of  America
\nin  Marsh  v.  Alabama(1) and Tucker v.\t State\tof  Texas(2)
\nTucker’s case was decided on the basis of the rule laid down
\nin  Marsh’s case.  Hence it is not necessary to consider  it
\nseparately.   In  Marsh’s case the Supreme Court  laid\tdown
\nthat the constitutional ,guarantees of freedoms of press and
\nof  religion  precludes\t the  enforcement  against  one\t who
\nundertook to distribute religious literature on a street  of
\na  company-owned town, contrary to the wishes of the  town’s
\nmanagement, of a state statute making it a crime to enter or
\nremain on the premises of another after having been
\n(1) 90, Law ed. p. 265.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 90, Law ecd. p. 274.\n<\/p>\n
555<\/span><\/p>\n
warned not to, do so.  In order to appreciate this  decision
\nit is necessary to  bear in mind the facts of the  case.
\nThe appellant thereinwas  a  Jehovahs Witness  who  came
\ninto the sidewalk of a privatetown  situate  near   the
\npost   office\tand  undertook\t to   distribute   religious
\nliterature.   In  the  store the corporation  had  posted  a
\nnotice which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “This Is Private Property and Without  Written
\n\t      Permission, No Street, or House Vendor,  Agent
\n\t      or   Solicitation\t  of  Any   Kind   Will\t  Be
\n\t      Permitted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellant was warned that she should not distribute\t the
\nliterature without a permit and told that no permit would be
\nissued\tto her.\t She protested that the company\t rule  could
\nnot  be constitutionally applied so as to prohibit her\tfrom
\ndistributing  religious\t writings. )When she  was  asked  to
\nleave the sidewalk and Chicka-saw she declined.\t The  deputy
\nsheriff arrested her and she was charged in the state  court
\nfor violating the law.\tThe town in question is described in
\nthe judgment thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The town, a suburb of Mobile, Alabama,. known
\n\t      as  Chicka-saw,  is  owned by  the  Gulf\tShip
\n\t      building Corporation.  Except for that it\t has
\n\t      all the characteristics of any other  American
\n\t      town.   The property consists  of\t residential
\n\t      buildings,  streets, a system of ”  sewers,  a
\n\t      sewage disposal plant and a “business block on
\n\t      which business places are situated.. A  deputy
\n\t      of  the  Mobile County Sheriff,  paid  by\t the
\n\t      company,\tserves\tas  the\t town’s\t  policeman.
\n\t      Merchants\t and  service  establishments\thave
\n\t      rented  the stores and business places on\t the
\n\t      business block and the United States uses\t one
\n\t      of the places as a post office from which\t six
\n\t      carriers\t deliver  mail\tto  the\t people\t  of
\n\t      Chickasaw and the adjacent area.\tThe town and
\n\t      the surrounding neighborhood, which cannot  be
\n\t      distinguished from the gulf property by anyone
\n\t      not  familiar  with the  property\t lines,\t are
\n\t      thickly\tsettled,   and\taccording   to\t all
\n\t      indications  the\tresidents use  the  business
\n\t      block as their regular shopping center.  To do
\n\t      so,  they\t now, as they have for\tmany  years,
\n\t      make  use of a company-owned paved street\t and
\n\t      sidewalk located alongside the store fronts in
\n\t      order  to enter and leave the stores  and\t the
\n\t      post office.  Intersecting company-owned roads
\n\t      at each end of the business block lead into  a
\n\t      four-lane\t public highway which runs  parallel
\n\t      to the business block at a distance of  thirty
\n\t      feet.   There  is\t nothing  to  stop   highway
\n\t      traffic  from coming into the  business  block
\n\t      and upon arrival a traveller may make free use
\n\t      of  the facilities available there.  In  short
\n\t      the   town  and  its  shopping  district\t are
\n\t      accessible to and freely used by the public in
\n\t      general and there is nothing to distinguish
\n\t      556<\/span>
\n\t      them  from any other town and shopping  centre
\n\t      except the fact that the title to the property
\n\t      belongs to a private corporation.”
\n\t      From  the above description it is\t clear\tthat
\n\t      the roads and sidewalks in that town had\tbeen
\n\t      dedicated\t for  public  use.  It\tis  in\tthat
\n\t      context Justice Black observed:
\n\t      “The  more an owner, for his advantage,  opens
\n\t      up  his  property\t for use by  the  public  in
\n\t      general,\tthe  more  do  his  rights,,  become
\n\t      circumscribed    by    the    statutory\t and
\n\t      constitutional rights of those who use it.”
\n\t      The learned Judge further observed :
\n\t      “We  do  not think it-makes,  any\t significant
\n\t      constitutional\tdifference   as\t   to\t the
\n\t      relationship  between the rights of the  owner
\n\t      and  those of the public that here the  State,
\n\t      instead  of  permitting  the  corporation\t  to
\n\t      operate  a  highway, permitted it to  use\t its
\n\t      property\tas  a  , town  operate\ta  ‘business
\n\t      block’ in, the town and a street and  sidewalk
\n\t      on that business block. . . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      As  we  have heretofore stated,  the  town  of
\n\t      Chickasaw\t does not function differently\tfrom
\n\t      any  other town.\tThe “business block”  serves
\n\t      as the community shopping centre and is freely
\n\t      accessible and open to the people in the\tarea
\n\t      and  those  passing  through.   The   managers
\n\t      appointed\t by the corporation  cannot  curtail
\n\t      the  liberty  of press and religion  of  these
\n\t      people  consistently with the purposes of\t the
\n\t      constitutional guarantees and a state statute,
\n\t      as the one here involved, which enforces\tsuch
\n\t      action  by  criminally  punishing\t those\t who
\n\t      attempt  to distribute  religious literature
\n\t      clearly  violates\t the  First  and  Fourteenth
\n\t      Amendments to the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  our opinion the rule laid down in Marsh’s case does\t not
\napply to the facts of this case.  ‘Me premises with which we
\nare concerned in this appeal unlike the roads and  sidewalks
\nof  Chickasaw  town  were not open for use  of\tthe  general
\npublic.\t  They\twere intended for certain  specified  public
\npurposes.   They  could not be used for\t any  other  purpose
\nexcept with the permission of the concerned authority.
\nNeither the language of Art. 19(1) nor the purpose behind it
\nlend  support to the contentions of Mr. Garg.  On the  other
\nhand their acceptance might lead to the confusion in  public
\noffices.  Hence we are unable to accept them.
\nIn  the result the appeal is allowed and the  writ  petition
\nmissed\tbut in the circumstances of the case we\t direct\t the
\nparties to bear their own costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
P.K.P.S.\t\t\t\tAppeal allowed.\n557<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 966, 1969 SCR (3) 548 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: RAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTING THE UNION OFINDIA, NEW DELHI AND Vs. RESPONDENT: NIRANJAN SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/02\/1969 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-53267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRailway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - 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\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Railway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-02T13:03:04+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T13:03:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\"},\"wordCount\":3390,\"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\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\",\"name\":\"Railway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T13:03:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Railway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - 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\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Railway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-02T13:03:04+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969","datePublished":"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T13:03:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969"},"wordCount":3390,"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\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969","name":"Railway Board, Representing The ... vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T13:03:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/railway-board-representing-the-vs-niranjan-singh-on-4-february-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Railway Board, Representing The … vs Niranjan Singh on 4 February, 1969"}]},{"@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\/53267","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=53267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}