{"id":6377,"date":"2011-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-04T18:13:10","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T12:43:10","slug":"ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                Date of Decision: 15th March, 2011\n\n+                          WP(C) 9314\/2009\n\n        RAM HET MEENA                             ..... Petitioner\n                 Through:        Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate\n\n                                 versus\n\n        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.              ..... Respondents\n                  Through: Ms.Naina Kejriwal, Advocate\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.              Vide order dated 13.1.1990, it has been intimated
\nto the petitioner that the Appointing Authority finds him
\nunsuitable for service in CISF, a Central Para-Military Force.\n<\/p>\n
2.              Petitioner successfully cleared the selection process
\nfor appointment as a Constable-Driver under CISF but on
\naccount of being convicted for an offence punishable under
\nSection 336 IPC, was let off on probation, has been rendered a
\nperson     of     questionable   antecedents     by   the   Appointing
\nAuthority of CISF.\n<\/p>\n
3.              It would be noted that the petitioner was charged
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                             Page 1 of 10<\/span>
\n for offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 325, 336 and
\n341 IPC. There were 3 other co-accused. It was alleged that
\nthe 4 accused had attacked one Anil on a boundary dispute in
\nthe village.        Pertaining to the offences punishable under
\nSection 323, 324, 325 and 341 IPC, the parties entered into a
\ncompromise since the said offences were compoundable. As
\nregards the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, the 4
\naccused voluntarily pleaded guilty and were let off on
\nprobation. This is as per order dated 29.6.2006 passed by a
\nlearned Judicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
4.            We may note that the petitioner did not suppress
\nany information when he applied for the job.                  Filling up the
\napplication form he truthfully disclosed that he was prosecuted
\nin a Criminal Court and when asked to clarify as to the nature
\nof the prosecution he truthfully disclosed his being convicted
\nand being let off on probation.               He enclosed a copy of the
\njudicial verdict.\n<\/p>\n
5.            We highlight that it is not a case where the
\npetitioner suppressed the truth or tried to hide relevant facts
\nwhich had a bearing on his character verification.\n<\/p>\n
6.            On the issue whether any kind of brush with the
\nprocess of the criminal law resulted in a conviction should
\nrender    a       citizen    of   this     country   ineligible   for   public
\nemployment on the ground that a brush with criminal law is
\nindicative of immoral character or a character which renders a
\nperson     ineligible       for   public    employment      or    renders        it
\nundesirable to induct said person in public employment, in the
\ndecision reported as 171 (2010) DLT 705 (DB) Government of
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                                   Page 2 of 10<\/span>
\n NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Robin Singh, in paras 16 to 38 it was
\nobserved as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      16. It is no doubt true that police plays an essential
\n      role of enforcement of law and order in modern
\n      societies. Without an efficient police force, a society
\n      would become anarchic. To ensure that the police
\n      force of a state is efficient, the state must ensure that
\n      each individual recruited to the police force, at
\n      whatever level, must possess the following attributes:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a) Physical Strength and fitness\/Free from medical
\n      diseases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b) Emotional maturity, and ability to remain calm in
\n      emotionally charged situations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)    Ability to exercise initiative in their work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)    Good moral character and integrity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (e) The ability to carry a great deal of responsibility
\n      in handling difficult situations alone\/ dependability.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (f)    Good Judgment\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      17. Keeping in view the above attributes, which are
\n      the minimum required of a person who becomes a
\n      member of the police force, it becomes the duty of the
\n      State to carefully screen the candidates with reference
\n      to the aforesaid attributes. But, what we find in India
\n      is that the only screening done is with respect to the
\n      moral character and integrity, physical strength and
\n      free from medical disease. Evidenced by the instant
\n      case, the first attribute is sought to be verified by
\n      archaic means i.e. checking on the police dossiers or
\n      relying upon information provided by the candidate
\n      himself and the second, of physical strength, by
\n      subjecting the candidates to a physical test, and of
\n      being free from medical disease by conducting the
\n      medical examination. No evaluation pertaining to the
\n      emotional maturity, ability to remain calm in
\n      emotionally charged situations, ability to handle<\/p>\n
WP(C) 9314\/2009                                              Page 3 of 10<\/span>
\n       difficult situations and be responsive and the ability of
\n      initiative in work is conducted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      18. We find that in some jurisdictions abroad, such
\n      as United States of America, Canada, Philippines, to
\n      name a few, a psychological test is conducted to
\n      ascertain the suitability of candidates commensurate
\n      to the nature of job they are being inducted to. At
\n      times a polygraph test is also conducted to check the
\n      deceiving tendencies of candidates. Because so much
\n      public trust is placed in peace officers, candidates for
\n      these positions are carefully screened to rule out
\n      emotional instability, poor judgment, lack of
\n      dependability, or other problems which might
\n      negatively affect their law enforcement work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      19. A criminal record is a record of a person’s
\n      criminal history, generally used by potential employers
\n      to assess the candidate’s trustworthiness. The
\n      information included in a criminal record varies
\n      between countries and even between jurisdictions
\n      within a country. In most cases it lists all non-
\n      expunged criminal offenses and may also include
\n      traffic offenses such as speeding and drunk-driving. In
\n      some      countries   the    record   is   limited   to
\n      actual convictions (where the individual has pleaded
\n      guilty or been declared guilty by a qualified court)
\n      while in others it also includes arrests, charges
\n      dismissed, charges pending and even charges of
\n      which the individual has been acquitted. The latter
\n      policy is often argued to be a human rights violation
\n      since it works contrary to the presumption of
\n      innocence by exposing people to discrimination on the
\n      basis of unproven allegations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      20. It is unfortunate that in India we are not
\n      marching ahead in the comity of nations and prefer to
\n      be governed by the recruitment processes which are a
\n      legacy of the British era; ignoring that the purpose of
\n      governance then was to rule and the purpose of
\n      governance now is to serve.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(C) 9314\/2009                                        Page 4 of 10<\/span><\/p>\n
       21. We have prefaced our decision with the
\n      statement whether pendency of a criminal proceeding
\n      or for that matter a conviction by a competent court of
\n      law may justify eyebrows to be raised, but would it
\n      justify the shutting of one’s eye?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      22. Now, a man can be booked for the offence of
\n      over-speeding and perhaps may be convicted for
\n      parking his motor vehicle in a non-parking area.
\n      Would this man be of a character, compelling in public
\n      interest and for public good, not to induct him in public
\n      service? The answer would be in the negative. As
\n      against that, a man has committed murder or has
\n      broken into a departmental store and stolen cash.
\n      Would this man be of a character, compelling in public
\n      interest and for public good, not to induct him in public
\n      service. The answer would be in the affirmative.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      23. Not to induct persons with a criminal background
\n      in public service, is based on the premise that
\n      considerations of public policy, concern for public
\n      interest, regard for public good would justify a
\n      prohibition.    Thus, the primary consideration is,
\n      whether public interest and public good would be
\n      jeopardized if a person with a criminal background is
\n      inducted in public service. And this takes us straight
\n      to the core of the issue, whether brush with penal law
\n      would justify the eyes to be closed against the
\n      offender or only such brush with penal law which is of
\n      a higher degree of criminality. If the answer is in the
\n      negative, the further question: what should be the
\n      higher degree of criminality which would justify the
\n      eyes being shut to such person needs to be
\n      addressed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      24. With respect to the first two examples given by
\n      us in para 22 above, none would argue that for such
\n      trivial offences the eyes must be shut against the
\n      offender, and with regard to the next two, everybody
\n      would agree that the eyes should be shut to such a
\n      person who has to be ignored. We concede that the
\n      examples are in the extreme, but they certainly help
\n      us in understanding as to the process of reasoning
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                        Page 5 of 10<\/span>
\n       required to be adopted to decide as to on which side
\n      of the border-line a case would fall.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      25. A look at the penal laws in India would show that
\n      most of the penal offences can be categorized under
\n      two broad categories i.e. felony and misdemeanour. A
\n      further look at the sections stipulating penalties would
\n      show that felonies are treated as more grave vis-\u00e0-vis
\n      misdemeanours. Further, by classifying offences as
\n      cognizable and non-cognizable, higher and lower
\n      degrees of criminality to the offences can be
\n      discerned. Further, by classifying offences as bailable
\n      and non-bailable, the degree of criminality can be
\n      further discerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      26. The civil concept of an offence being of a
\n      depraving character is to look at whether the act
\n      complained of suffers from the tag of a moral
\n      turpitude or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      27. We do not intend to make a catalog of reported
\n      decisions as to what misdemeanours should normally
\n      attract the penalty of removal or dismissal from
\n      service. We may simply state that with respect to
\n      conviction for grave and serious offences alone, on the
\n      anvil of public interest and for public good, Courts
\n      have held that the offender has rendered himself unfit
\n      to continue in office and in extreme cases summary
\n      dismissal or removal from service by invoking Article
\n      311 of the Constitution is also held justified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      28. Thus, we have a guideline of serious and grave
\n      offences being the touchstone in case of the door
\n      being shown to the government servant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      29. Looking through the prism of case law pertaining
\n      to when can the door be shown to a government
\n      servant and by doing reverse engineering we can
\n      safely say that what is good for the door to be shown,
\n      is good for prohibiting entry through the door, and
\n      thus while denying public employment with respect to
\n      the offence committed by a person, it can be said, and
\n      we say so, that it may be a serious violation of the
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                       Page 6 of 10<\/span>
\n       constitutional right of a citizen to be fairly treated in
\n      the matter of public employment if trivial offences
\n      committed by the citizen would justify the State
\n      shutting its eyes and denying employment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      30. Having answered the question posed in para 1
\n      above, and the answer being in favour of the citizen,
\n      we need to answer the further question as to which
\n      offences or brush therewith, would justify non entry
\n      into public service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      31. We have a clue; of offences being grave, serious
\n      and involving a moral turpitude justifying public
\n      employment not being given. These would certainly
\n      not justify the offender being inducted into public
\n      service. None would disagree that convicted and fined
\n      for parking a car in a no-parking area or convicted for
\n      over-speeding would attract the de minimis principle,
\n      but the problem would be in cases closer to the
\n      borderline. For therein would lie the problem as to in
\n      which side of the boundary line should they be
\n      categorized.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      32. It is unfortunate that in India, the Government
\n      does not come out with white papers of the
\n      deliberations at various seminars, but we find a
\n      reference made to the ‘All India Seminar on
\n      Correctional Service’ held at New Delhi in March 1969,
\n      to consider and lay guidelines pertaining to the
\n      problem of rehabilitation of ex-convicts, with emphasis
\n      on the need for their employment under the
\n      government. Vide OM dated 2.2.1973, No.6857-GSI-
\n      72-2755, the State of Haryana has listed the penal
\n      offences which have been treated as grave, serious
\n      and involving moral turpitude. The said OM lists the
\n      under-noted penal offences as grave, serious and
\n      involving moral turpitude, disentitling the convict to
\n      public employment; the offences are:- Sections 120-A,
\n      121-A, 122 to 124, 161, 161-1A, 165, 167, 181, 182,
\n      193 to 201, 205, 209, 293, 302, 304, 307, 354, 359,
\n      362, 363 to 366, 366-A, 366-B, 367 to 373, 376, 377,
\n      379, 380, 391, 392, 398 to 400, 403, 404, 406 to 409,
\n      417 to 421, 449, 450, 453 to 458, 465 to 468, 471 to
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                        Page 7 of 10<\/span>
\n       476, 477-A, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E, 493 to
\n      498 of the Penal Code.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      33. We are a little surprised at the list as it excludes
\n      offences such as promoting enmity or doing acts
\n      prejudicial to maintenance of harmony i.e. offences
\n      punishable under Section 153-A IPC.         It excludes
\n      offences pertaining to mutiny and its abetment i.e.
\n      offences under Sections 131 to 136 IPC. But we do not
\n      comment. However, what we find is, the common
\n      thread of including all offences against women and
\n      such offences which are punishable with imprisonment
\n      for life as also imprisonment for a term exceeding
\n      three years and above. We get a clue. Offences
\n      which do not carry a mandatory sentence of
\n      imprisonment and it to be imprisoned the term is less
\n      than 3 years and the offender can be let off with
\n      payment of fine, are not included in the said list. It is
\n      an undisputed fact that there are no rules to guide the
\n      authorities in Delhi Police as to in what cases despite
\n      acquittal, the person can be kept out of service or can
\n      be deprived of employment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      34. That apart, as generically understood, offences
\n      involving moral turpitude can be classified with
\n      reference to the act being one which shocks the moral
\n      conscience of the society in general and this can be
\n      determined with reference to the motive of the
\n      offender i.e. whether the motive which led to the act
\n      was a base one or alternatively whether on account of
\n      the act having been committed the perpetrator could
\n      be considered to be of a depraved character or a
\n      person who was to be looked down upon by the
\n      society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      35. Today, with plea bargaining being a well-
\n      recognized facet of the administration of criminal law
\n      and a part of criminal jurisprudence in India, we do
\n      perceive a large number of cases involving thousands
\n      and thousands throughout the country, appearing
\n      before the Summary Courts and paying small amounts
\n      of fine, more often than not, as a measure of plea
\n      bargaining. Foremost would be amongst them petty
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                        Page 8 of 10<\/span>
\n       crimes committed mostly by the young and\/or the
\n      inexperienced.   Some may even undergo a petty
\n      sentence of imprisonment of a week or ten days. We
\n      may also notice that Section 302 Cr.P.C. prescribes for
\n      taking note of compoundable offences at the instance
\n      of the complainant itself and there are cases where
\n      compounding can take place with the permission of
\n      the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      36. Life is too precious to be staked over petty
\n      incidents and the cruel result of conviction for petty
\n      offences being the end of the career, the future and
\n      the present, of young and inexperienced persons
\n      cannot blast their life and their dreams.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      37. In a growing democracy, where the systems are
\n      failing and the weak and the downtrodden are hardly
\n      given the opportunity to sharpen their intellect
\n      thereby diminishing the ability of their consciousness
\n      to act as a mirror to their acts and actions, it is high
\n      time that the executive brings into place a policy
\n      where summary\/ordinary conviction should not be
\n      treated as a conviction for entry or retention in
\n      government service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      38. Till then, it would be the duty of the Court to
\n      interpret the law by harmonizing human sufferings
\n      and human wants, delinquencies and criminal
\n      tendencies; conscious of the fact that passengers on
\n      Spaceship Earth are the rich and the poor, the needy
\n      and the well-off, the hungry and the well-fed, the
\n      educated and the uneducated. The need of the hour
\n      is to understand that criminals are not born and are
\n      not irredeemable brutes. Crime may be a disease but
\n      not the criminal, who are a kind of psychic patients
\n      and to understand, that anti-social maladies are
\n      mostly the result of social imbalances. It must be
\n      remembered that on the one hand, social stresses, for
\n      various reasons, explosively mount in the real world’s
\n      hard environs and the harsh remedy of heartless
\n      incarceration and ouster from society deepens the
\n      criminality.  The swing of the pendulum to the
\n      humanist side requires respect for the worth of
\nWP(C) 9314\/2009                                       Page 9 of 10<\/span>
\n       personhood and the right of every man and woman in
\n      its residual human essence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.           In the said decision, a person convicted of offences
\npunishable under Section 323\/504\/506 IPC was held not
\nrendered ineligible for public employment.\n<\/p>\n
8.           Accordingly,   we   dispose   of   the   writ   petition
\nquashing the order dated 13.1.2009 and issue a direction to
\nthe respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner
\nin light of the law laid down in Robin Singh’s case (supra),
\nrelevant parts whereof have been extracted extensively
\nhereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
9.           Necessary decision would be communicated to the
\npetitioner within four weeks from today and further action
\nwould be taken by the parties as per the said decision.\n<\/p>\n
10.          No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                           (SURESH KAIT)
\n                                               JUDGE
\nMARCH 15, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
WP(C) 9314\/2009                                          Page 10 of 10<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15th March, 2011 + WP(C) 9314\/2009 RAM HET MEENA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….. Respondents […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - 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\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-04T12:43:10+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T12:43:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2714,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T12:43:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - 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\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-04T12:43:10+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T12:43:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011"},"wordCount":2714,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011","name":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T12:43:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-het-meena-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Het Meena vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 March, 2011"}]},{"@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\/6377","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=6377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}