{"id":56256,"date":"2010-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-29T23:26:26","modified_gmt":"2015-12-29T17:56:26","slug":"sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 6445 of 2010(E)\n\n\n1. SUJATHA, W\/O.LATE C.K.PADMANABHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :07\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                               S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                        W.P(C) No. 6445 of 2010\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                Dated this, the 7th day of June, 2010.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The petitioner is the widow of late C.K. Padmanabhan, who<\/p>\n<p>belonged to a scheduled caste community and was a freedom fighter.<\/p>\n<p>Her   claim for pension under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman<\/p>\n<p>Pension Scheme in respect of the sufferings of her husband did not<\/p>\n<p>succeed. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.<\/p>\n<p>10518\/2005.    In that writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court<\/p>\n<p>passed the following judgment:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;The writ petition is filed for the following among other<br \/>\n     reliefs:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;i)    declare that petitioner is entitled to get the<br \/>\n         benefit of SSS Pension due to her late husband;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate<br \/>\n         writ, direction or order compelling the 2nd respondent to<br \/>\n         recommend the petitioner&#8217;s claim for the grant of SSS<br \/>\n         Pension along with their verification-cum-entitlement to<br \/>\n         pension report to the 1st respondent, and on receipt of the<br \/>\n         same the 1st respondent may also be directed to grant the<br \/>\n         benefit of dependent family pension under the SSS Pension<br \/>\n         Scheme to the petitioner within a stipulated time;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               iii)  issue any other appropriate writ, direction or<br \/>\n         order which this Hon&#8217;ble Court may deem fit and proper in<br \/>\n         the nature and circumstances of the case.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            2. The case of the petitioner is that her deceased husband<br \/>\n     was a freedom fighter who had active participation in the<br \/>\n     Punnapra-Vayalar Movement during the freedom struggle. It is<br \/>\n     averred that he had undergone the undertrial imprisonment in the<br \/>\n     police station lock-up at Alappuzha for a period of one year, one<br \/>\n     month and sixteen days and thereafter in the Central Prison,<br \/>\n     Thiruvananthapuram for a period of three months and twenty<br \/>\n     three days, till he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge.<br \/>\n     Ext.P2 is the true extract of the register of undertrial prisoners of<br \/>\n     Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P3 is the order granting<br \/>\n     State Pension.      Ext.P4 is the application submitted by the<br \/>\n     petitioner for the grant of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension (for<br \/>\n     short SSS).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            3. Ext.P6 order of the State Government is under challenge.<br \/>\n     Two reasons are stated for not forwarding her application for the<br \/>\n     grant of SSS pension. Her late husband Sri.Padmanabhan had<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 6445\/10                     -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       suffered imprisonment for a period of less than six months and his<br \/>\n       undertrial sufferings did not end in conviction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the<br \/>\n       deceased Padmanabhan belongs to Scheduled Caste Community.<br \/>\n       Ext.P10 is the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Cherthala,<br \/>\n       certifying that Padmanabhan belongs to               Scheduled Caste<br \/>\n       Community. Ext.P2 undertrial register also shows that the<br \/>\n       deceased Padmanabhan is a Hindu-Velan, which is a Scheduled<br \/>\n       Caste category. The learned counsel also refers to paragraph 4\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (b) of the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, which is extracted as<br \/>\n       follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>         &#8220;(b)    The minimum period of actual imprisonment for<br \/>\n         eligibility of pension has been reduced to three months, in<br \/>\n         case of women and SC\/ST freedom fighters from 01.08.80.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              5. The question was directly answered by a Full Bench of<br \/>\n       this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/887284\/\">Union of India V. Peter Devassia<\/a> [2003 (1) KLT<br \/>\n       467]. This court held that the imprisonment for six months in jail<br \/>\n       as undertrial prisoner can be counted for computing freedom<br \/>\n       fighters pension. This Court also held that the trial need not end<br \/>\n       in conviction. Sub Section b of Clause 4 of the Scheme read with<br \/>\n       the decision of the Full Bench of this Court makes the matter very<br \/>\n       clear.    Therefore, there will be a direction to the          State<br \/>\n       Government       to   forward     the    application     along with<br \/>\n       recommendation of the State Government for the grant of SSS<br \/>\n       Pension.     The application with the recommendation shall be<br \/>\n       forwarded within a period of one month from today and the 1st<br \/>\n       respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders within a<br \/>\n       period of two months thereafter.        In the event of sanction of<br \/>\n       Pension, it is made clear that the applicant is entitled to arrears<br \/>\n       from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 28.07.1998.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Pursuant thereto, by Ext. P8, the respondent rejected the claim of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;5.    After examination of the claim, it is found that Smt. Sujatha<br \/>\n      is not eligible for grant of dependent family pension due to the<br \/>\n      following shortcomings\/discrepancies:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      i.      She has not furnished any Primary\/Secondary evidence to<br \/>\n      substantiate her claim (as described in para 4 above) of lock up<br \/>\n      suffering. She has also claimed undertrial suffering for a period of<br \/>\n      3 months and 23 days of her late husband in the Central Prison,<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 6445\/10                    -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Trivandrum. Copies of Extract of register of Under-Trial prisoners<br \/>\n     of Central Prison, submitted by her have no been verified by the<br \/>\n     State Government Order, hence cannot be relied upon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     ii.    In absence of acceptable primary evidence, she is required<br \/>\n     to furnish Secondary Evidence in the form of NARC from the State<br \/>\n     Government along with CPC as prescribed in the Scheme.<br \/>\n     However, she has not done so. The petitioner has not furnished<br \/>\n     NARC from the State Government. The copy of certificate from<br \/>\n     Superintendent,     Sub-jail, Alappuzha provided by the petitioner<br \/>\n     cannot be treated as valid NARC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     iii.   Neither the extracts of register of Under Trial Prisoners nor<br \/>\n     the certificate issued by Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Alappuzha shows<br \/>\n     that the sufferings of the petitioner&#8217;s husband was in connection<br \/>\n     with the Freedom Struggle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     iv.    In the absence of valid NARC, the CPC submitted by the<br \/>\n     petitioner cannot be considered. The CPC from Sh. P.A. Solomon<br \/>\n     has, however, been scrutinized. The petitioner has not furnished<br \/>\n     the jail records to establish the jail suffering of the certifier for a<br \/>\n     period of at least 1 year. Thus the CPC is not acceptable as the<br \/>\n     certifier has not furnished any record\/evidence of his own jail<br \/>\n     suffering of minimum one year (i.e., he has furnished no evidence<br \/>\n     to establish that he is an eligible certifier).        More over, the<br \/>\n     certificate given by P.A. Solomon are not acceptable as he is<br \/>\n     misusing his status of a freedom fighter and issuing the CPCs<br \/>\n     indiscriminately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     v.     The petitioner has       submitted that she belongs to ST<br \/>\n     Community. In her application dated 28.7.98, the petitioner has<br \/>\n     mentioned &#8220;No&#8217; against the column 14 asking               &#8216;whether the<br \/>\n     applicant is member of SC\/ST community&#8217;. The petitioner\/State<br \/>\n     Government has not provided any certificate verifying her status as<br \/>\n     ST. Now she is claiming to be ST. This creates sufficient doubts<br \/>\n     regarding genuineness and bona fide of her claim. If the petitioner<br \/>\n     does not furnish requisite certificate certifying hr claim as a<br \/>\n     member of SC\/ST, she will be treated as applicant from &#8216;General<br \/>\n     Category&#8217; and her claim is not covered under the relaxed category.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     vi.    The State Government has recommended the claim of the<br \/>\n     petitioner. However, the recommendation is based on the grounds<br \/>\n     which are otherwise not acceptable. As such the recommendation<br \/>\n     of the State Government cannot be acceded to.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     6.     In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner does not<br \/>\n     meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the<br \/>\n     Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     7.     It is, therefore, regretted that it is not possible to accept her<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 6445\/10                    -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      claim for grant of dependent family pension under the Swatantrata<br \/>\n      Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.          Hence the same is, hereby,<br \/>\n      rejected.   The petitioner may        be informed of the decision<br \/>\n      accordingly. However, the Ministry is still ready to recosider the<br \/>\n      claim of the petitioner if she furnishes the documents duly verified<br \/>\n      by the State Government to remove the shortcomings mentioned<br \/>\n      above.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The respondent in this writ petition was a respondent in the writ<\/p>\n<p>petition which resulted in Ext. P6 judgment. The respondent did not<\/p>\n<p>raise any of these objections before the learned Judge while the writ<\/p>\n<p>petition was being heard. In that judgment, this court upheld the<\/p>\n<p>right of the petitioner to get SSS pension, holding that her husband<\/p>\n<p>belonged to a Scheduled Caste Community. That being so, the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent cannot now dispute the claim as a member of a scheduled<\/p>\n<p>caste. Moreover, what is relevant is the caste status of her husband<\/p>\n<p>and not of the petitioner.         The 1st respondent cannot raise new<\/p>\n<p>objections when in the earlier judgment all these matters could have<\/p>\n<p>been agitated and thrashed out, which they did not. Putting freedom<\/p>\n<p>fighters and their widows through such agony again and again shows<\/p>\n<p>lack of patriotism on the part of the officers who deal with the same.<\/p>\n<p>They cannot take the stand that they will consider the matter on<\/p>\n<p>merits only after the State Government first considers it, when they<\/p>\n<p>had an opportunity to raise all these contentions before this Court<\/p>\n<p>earlier. They must understand that persons like the petitioner, with<\/p>\n<p>the limited resources they have, cannot afford the luxury of fighting<\/p>\n<p>writ petitions time and again, in the twilight zone of their life. That<\/p>\n<p>being so, I do not think that they could pass Ext. P8 order in violation<\/p>\n<p>of Ext. P6     judgment.       Ext. P8 is clearly in violation of Ext. P6<\/p>\n<p>judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, Ext. P8 is quashed.          The respondent is directed to<\/p>\n<p>grant pension to the petitioner under the SSS Pension Scheme from<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 6445\/10             -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the date when the original application for pension was filed either by<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner or by her husband. Arrears shall be paid within a<\/p>\n<p>period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n<p>judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                      Sd\/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>Tds\/<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 6445 of 2010(E) 1. SUJATHA, W\/O.LATE C.K.PADMANABHAN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI The Hon&#8217;ble MR. [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - 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\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-29T17:56:26+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T17:56:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1568,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-29T17:56:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - 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\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-29T17:56:26+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T17:56:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010"},"wordCount":1568,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010","name":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-29T17:56:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujatha-vs-union-of-india-represented-by-the-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sujatha vs Union Of India Represented By The on 7 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/56256","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=56256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}