{"id":66097,"date":"1995-01-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-01-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995"},"modified":"2018-07-10T13:51:14","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T08:21:14","slug":"sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","title":{"rendered":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)  1383-92 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nSALES TAX COMMISSIONER ETC. ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB.G. PATEL ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/01\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY &amp; N. VENKATACHALA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1995 (1) SCR 22<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>Delay condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p>This petition for special leave arises from the order of the High Court of<br \/>\nGujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 12748 to 12757 of 1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondents-senior clerks who belonged to Scheduled Tribes represented<br \/>\nto the Government to accord them the benefit of the proviso to Rule 11A of<br \/>\nGujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1985<br \/>\n(for short, &#8216;the Rules&#8217;). On denial thereof, they approached the Gujarat<br \/>\nCivil Services Tribunal which by its order dated 5.2.1993 directed the<br \/>\npetitioner to consider their cases for promotion giving them the benefit of<br \/>\nthe proviso. The Tribunal followed its earlier Full Bench Judgment and had<br \/>\ngiven direction accordingly. On revision, the High Court has confirmed the<br \/>\nsame.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended<br \/>\nthat the interpretation given by the Tribunal and the High Court, if found<br \/>\nacceptable, renders the main part of Rule 11-A redundant and the proviso<br \/>\nwould become operative in every case. Therefore, the matter requires<br \/>\nconsideration by this Court. We do not find force in the contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11-A(2) speaks of minimum service of different classes<br \/>\nof employees. It postulates that &#8220;where any rule or order relating to<br \/>\nrecruitment of promotion to any service or post including the State Service<br \/>\nor subordinate service, possession of experience in a lower services or<br \/>\npost for a specified period is not prescribed as a condition precedent to<br \/>\npromotion to a Higher service or post, the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall<br \/>\napply. Sub-rule (2) prescribed the procedure. In case of promotion from a<br \/>\nlower post in class III to a higher post in the same service a minimum of 5<br \/>\nyears service has been prescribed in clause (a) to Rule 11-A (2).<br \/>\nSimilarly, from class III to class II service, experience of 7 years has<br \/>\nbeen prescribed in clause (b). In clause (c) from a lower post in class II<br \/>\nservice to a higher post in the same service, a minimum experience of 5<br \/>\nyears in the post from which a person is to be promoted has been<br \/>\nprescribed. In clause (d) for promotion from Class II service to class I<br \/>\nservice an experience of 8 years in class II service has been prescribed<br \/>\nunless he has experience of 8 years service in class II service from which<br \/>\nhe is to be promoted. The proviso which is relevant for the purpose of this<br \/>\ncase, reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Provided that where an appointing authority is satisfied that a person<br \/>\nhaving an experience specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) or as the case may<br \/>\nbe, (d) is not available for promotion and that it is in public interest to<br \/>\nfill up the post or service by promotion of a person having experience for<br \/>\na lesser period. It may for the reasons to be recorded in writing promote<br \/>\nsuch person who has experience for a period not less than two thirds of the<br \/>\nperiod specified in clause (a), (b) (c) or (d) which applies to him&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>It would thus be clear that clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-A<br \/>\nprescribe a minimum experience in a lower post for promotion to a higher<br \/>\npost, but the proviso enables the appointing authority on its satisfaction<br \/>\nthat the person required to have the previous experience prescribed under<br \/>\nclauses (a) to (d) is not available for promotion and that in the public<br \/>\ninterest the post or service is required to be filled up by promotion, the<br \/>\nprovision postulates that such person has to put in, not less than two<br \/>\nthirds of the period specified in either clauses (a) to (d), Then it<br \/>\nenables the appointing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing to<br \/>\npromote such person. It is settled law that the proviso and the main part<br \/>\nof the Act or Rule are to be harmoniously read together and interpreted to<br \/>\ngive effect to the object of the provision. Rule 11A prescribes minimum<br \/>\nperiod of previous experience in lower post for promotion to a higher post.<br \/>\nIt is normal rule. But, where the candidate is not available fulfilling the<br \/>\nmini-mum experience but the exigencies of the administration require<br \/>\nfilling up the post or office by promotion and the appointing authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that such a person has already put in not less than 2\/3rd of the<br \/>\nperiod specified in the relevant clause in sub-rule (2) to Rule 11-A and<br \/>\nthe candidate is otherwise eligible for promotion, then power has been<br \/>\ngiven by the proviso to relax the balance period, for reasons to be<br \/>\nrecorded and to consider the case for promotion according to rules. If the<br \/>\ncontention of the State is accepted, the reverse would be the order, in<br \/>\nother words, the proviso would be rendered otiose and ineffective. On an<br \/>\nharmonious interpretation, as it was rightly done by the Tribunal and the<br \/>\nHigh Court that in an appropriate case where the appointing authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that a person having not less than 2\/3rd of the period of<br \/>\nexperience specified in the relevant clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 11-A(2) is<br \/>\navailable and in the public interest it is necessary to appoint the person<br \/>\nby promotion, the proviso enables the appointing authority to relax the<br \/>\nbalance l\/3rd period prescribed by the relevant clauses and make necessary<br \/>\nappointment by promotion. It is seen, as fairly not disputed by Shri Dave,<br \/>\nthat number of posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes remained unfilled due to<br \/>\nlack of persons possessed of minimum experience prescribed under sub-rule<br \/>\n(2) of Rule 11-A and the respondents have completed 2\/3rd of the period<br \/>\nspecified in the relevant clauses. Instead of dereserving the post for non-<br \/>\navailability, the proviso would enable the appointing authority to relax<br \/>\nthe balance period of experience and consider their claims for appointment<br \/>\nby promotion. Instead, the petitioner has taken technical view of the<br \/>\nmatter and committed illegality by failing to exercise the power under the<br \/>\nproviso to Rule 11-A of the Rules. The Tribunal and the High Court,<br \/>\ntherefore, were right in holding that the cases of respondents require to<br \/>\nbe considered for promotion in the light of the interpretation given by<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>The SLP is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 1383-92 of 1995 PETITIONER: SALES TAX COMMISSIONER ETC. ETC. RESPONDENT: B.G. PATEL ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/01\/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY &amp; N. VENKATACHALA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - 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\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1056,\"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\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\",\"name\":\"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - 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\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995","datePublished":"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995"},"wordCount":1056,"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\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995","name":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T08:21:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sales-tax-commissioner-etc-etc-vs-b-g-patel-etc-etc-on-3-january-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sales Tax Commissioner Etc. Etc vs B.G. Patel Etc. Etc on 3 January, 1995"}]},{"@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\/66097","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=66097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}