{"id":66434,"date":"1994-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994"},"modified":"2015-11-05T22:12:15","modified_gmt":"2015-11-05T16:42:15","slug":"p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC  (1) 468, \t  JT 1995 (1)\t180<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Punchhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Punchhi, M.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nP.K.SARIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nAHMADI A.M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (1) 468\t  JT 1995 (1)\t180\n 1994 SCALE  (5)303\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nPUNCHHI, J.- This bunch of matters comprising a civil appeal<br \/>\nand   a\t few  writ  petitions  under  Article  32   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution,\thave   a  common  aim  and   therefore\t can<br \/>\nconveniently  be disposed of by a common  order.   Necessary<br \/>\nfacts  can be gathered from the civil appeal  focussing\t the<br \/>\nissue.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The  appellants  are\tmembers of the\tU.P.  Civil  Service<br \/>\n(Judicial   Branch   &#8220;Nyayik.\tSewa&#8221;).\t  They\t were\twrit<br \/>\npetitioners  in\t one of the many  writ\tpetitions  preferred<br \/>\nbefore\tand  disposed  of  by  the  Allahabad  High   Court,<br \/>\ngoverning judgment of which is in Dinesh Chander  Srivastava<br \/>\nv. State of U.P.1 In sum that judgment is under appeal.\t The<br \/>\ncause  settled\ttherein\t was  the  one\twhich  arose  as  an<br \/>\naftermath  of Chandra Mohan v. State of U.p2 and  the  steps<br \/>\ntaken by the State of U.R in pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Candidates for recruiting District Judges in the State  of<br \/>\nUttar Pradesh, under the U.R Higher Judicial Service  Rules,<br \/>\nframed\t by  the  Government  under  Article  309   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution, could be drawn from three sources i.e. members<br \/>\nof the Bar, Judicial Officers (a misleading expression)\t who<br \/>\nare   members  of  the\tExecutive   Department\t discharging<br \/>\nmagisterial  and some revenue duties, and by promotion\tfrom<br \/>\nmembers\t of U.R Civil Services (Judicial Branch)  under\t the<br \/>\ncontrol of the High Court.  Six appointments from two of the<br \/>\nafore-described services, i.e., three from the Bar and three<br \/>\n1 AIR 1977 All 3 1 0<br \/>\n2 (1967) 1 SCR 77 : AIR 1966 SC 1987<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">471<\/span><br \/>\nfrom the &#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221; were proposed to be made by the<br \/>\nState, after Involving the High Court, when Chandra Mohan, a<br \/>\nmember of the U.P Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and others<br \/>\nfiled a writ petition in the High Court for the issuance  of<br \/>\nan appropriate writ directing the Government not to make the<br \/>\nappointments  pursuant\tto  the proposal.   Since  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition  was dismissed and the matter was brought  to\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  in appeal, the canvas of dispute, on account of\tmany<br \/>\npoints involved, was widely spread, but for our purposes  it<br \/>\nwould suffice to say that this Court ruled that the rules as<br \/>\nsuch framed by the Governor empowering him to recruit Judges<br \/>\nfrom  the &#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221; source  were  unconstitutional<br \/>\nand the recruitment of the &#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221; was bad.\t  It<br \/>\nwas  emphasised by this Court that the\tIndian\tConstitution<br \/>\nhad provided for an independent judiciary in the States\t and<br \/>\nin  order  to  put  the\t independence  of  the\t subordinate<br \/>\njudiciary  beyond  question,  provision\t had  been  made  in<br \/>\nArticle\t 50 of the Constitution in the Chapter of  Directive<br \/>\nPrinciples  for\t the separation of the\tjudiciary  from\t the<br \/>\nexecutive,  and further in enacting Articles 233 to  237  in<br \/>\nPart VI, Chapter VI of the Constitution, the appointment  of<br \/>\nDistrict  Judges in any State was envisaged to be made\tonly<br \/>\nfrom  two  sources i.e. (i) Service of the Union or  of\t the<br \/>\nState;\tand (ii) members of the Bar.  This Court went on  to<br \/>\nrule that the Service of the Union or of the State mentioned<br \/>\nin the first category did not mean each and every service of<br \/>\nthe Union or of the State but judicial service of the  Union<br \/>\nor  of the State.  &#8220;Judicial Service&#8221; as defined in  Article<br \/>\n236(b)\tmeant  a service consisting exclusively\t of  persons<br \/>\nintended to fill the post of District Judge and other  civil<br \/>\njudicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.Gathering  the history of the Service, it  was  noticed<br \/>\nthat after India attained independence in 1947, there  were,<br \/>\nwhen  the source of recruitment to Indian Civil Service\t had<br \/>\ndied  out, only two sources from which District\t Judges\t had<br \/>\nbeen  recruited, i.e., either from the Judicial\t Service  or<br \/>\nfrom  the  Bar,\t and there was no case of a  member  of\t the<br \/>\nexecutive having ever been promoted as a District Judge.  In<br \/>\nthis  backdrop, it was thought that recruitment of  District<br \/>\nJudges\tfrom  the  personnel  available\t in  the   Executive<br \/>\nDepartment  could  be deleterious to the good  name  of\t the<br \/>\njudiciary, and an attempt to undermine it had to be  frowned<br \/>\nupon.\tIn this backdrop, it was viewed by this\t Court\tthat<br \/>\nmethodology  under  Article  237  of  the  Constitution\t was<br \/>\navailable  where the Governor had the power to\tnotify\tthat<br \/>\nArticles  223 to 226 could apply to Magistrates, subject  to<br \/>\ncertain modifications or exceptions, if necessary, and\tthen<br \/>\neffect\tintegration  of\t the  Magistrates  in  the  Judicial<br \/>\nService,  which is one of the sources of recruitment to\t the<br \/>\npost  of District Judge.  It was emphasised that  till\tsuch<br \/>\nstep  is taken in the manner envisaged by Article  237,\t the<br \/>\nMagistrates  (Judicial Officers) were outside the  scope  of<br \/>\nArticles 223 to 226 of the Constitution.  In sum, under\t the<br \/>\nrules  then existing, the State of Uttar Pradesh  could\t not<br \/>\njustify the appointments of &#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221; as  District<br \/>\nJudges and attracted a mandamus issued by the Court for\t not<br \/>\nmaking\t  any\t appointment\tfrom\tthe    source\t  of<br \/>\nMagistrates\/Judicial  Officers.\t  The Rules  framed  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernor, without<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">472<\/span><br \/>\nresort\tto Article 237, empowering him to  recruit  District<br \/>\nJudges\tfrom  the  &#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221;\twere  thus  declared<br \/>\nunconstitutional  and  therefore  the  appointments  of\t the<br \/>\n&#8220;Judicial Officers&#8221; concerned were declared bad.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The  State  of Uttar Pradesh went  about  clearing  the<br \/>\nfall-out of Chandra Mohan case2 since the High Court on\t the<br \/>\nadministrative\tside was also anxious to do justice  to\t the<br \/>\nMagistrates\/Judicial Officers.\tWe would in the language  of<br \/>\nthe  High  Court,  say that the Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\nissued\tthe notification dated 12-3-1975, under Article\t 237<br \/>\nof the Constitution directing that the provisions of Chapter<br \/>\nVI  of\tPart  VI  of the Constitution  and  any\t rules\tmade<br \/>\nthereunder  shall with effect from the date of\tnotification<br \/>\napply  to  Judicial Magistrates\t (including  Chief  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrates)  in  the  State who are  members  of  the\tU.P.<br \/>\nJudicial  Officers  Service  as they apply  in\trelation  to<br \/>\npersons\t appointed  to\tthe Judicial service  of  the  State<br \/>\nsubject\t to two exceptions, namely, (1) the members  of\t the<br \/>\nU.P.  Judicial Officers Service shall constitute a  judicial<br \/>\nservice\t to  fill in the post of Additional  Sessions  Judge<br \/>\nonly   for  purposes  of  Articles  233\t and  236   of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution and (2) the U.P Judicial Officers Service shall<br \/>\nbe  a  service\tdistinct and separate from  the\t U.P.  Civil<br \/>\nService\t  (Judicial   Branch).\t By  means   of\t  this\t if&#8217;<br \/>\nnotification the Judicial Magistrates who are members of the<br \/>\nJudicial   Officers   Service  have  become   eligible\t for<br \/>\nappointment  to\t the  post  of\tAdditional  Sessions   Judge<br \/>\nincluded  within  the  definition  of  &#8220;District  Judge&#8221;  as<br \/>\ndefined\t  by   Article\t236  of\t  the\tConstitution.\t The<br \/>\nnotification  further  declares that the  Judicial  Officers<br \/>\nService shall be a judicial service.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.By  another notification dated 21-3-1975, the\t Governor<br \/>\nof Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his powers under Article 309<br \/>\nread  with  Article 233 of the\tConstitution  framed  rules,<br \/>\nnamely,\t the  U.P.  Higher  Judicial  Service  Rules,  1975,<br \/>\nregulating  recruitment\t and appointment to the\t U.P  Higher<br \/>\nJudicial Service.  Under Rule 4 the Higher Judicial  Service<br \/>\nconsists of a single cadre comprising the posts of  District<br \/>\nand  Sessions  Judges and Additional District  and  Sessions<br \/>\nJudges.\t Rule 5 lays down the sources of recruitment to\t the<br \/>\nservice:  According to it, recruitment to the service is  to<br \/>\nbe made by two sources (a) by direct recruitment of pleaders<br \/>\nand advocates of not less than seven years&#8217; standing and (b)<br \/>\nby  promotion of confirmed members of the U.P.\tNyayik\tSewa<br \/>\n(Members of the U.P. Civil Service, Judicial Branch) who may<br \/>\nhave  put  in  not less than seven years&#8217;  service  in\tthat<br \/>\ncadre.\t In  addition  to  that\t Judicial  Magistrates\t and<br \/>\nJudicial   Officers  have  also\t been  made   eligible\t for<br \/>\nappointment  but  only to the post  of\tAdditional  Sessions<br \/>\nJudge.\t Rule  6  prescribes quota for\trecruitment  to\t the<br \/>\nservice\t from  the three sources prescribed by Rule  5.\t The<br \/>\nrule lays down that 70% of the vacancies are to be filled in<br \/>\nby promotion from the members of the Nyayik Sewa, while\t 15%<br \/>\nof  the vacancies are to be filled by direct recruitment  of<br \/>\nadvocates  and the remaining 15% of the vacancies are to  be<br \/>\nfilled in by promotion from amongst the members of the\tU.P.<br \/>\nJudicial Officers Service (Judicial Magistrates).\n<\/p>\n<p>7.In Part VI of Chapter VI of the Constitution, the  word<br \/>\n&#8216;Magistrate&#8217;,  though  employed\t in Article  237,  does\t not<br \/>\nfigure to be defined and thus<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">473<\/span><br \/>\ninevitably  resort  has to be made to Section 3(32)  of\t the<br \/>\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 to note that a &#8216;Magistrate&#8217;  shall<br \/>\ninclude every person exercising all or any of the powers  of<br \/>\nthe Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure for\t the<br \/>\ntime  being  in\t force.\t  Coming to  the  Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure,  1973,  as  now  existing,  we  have\t courts\t and<br \/>\nmagistrates  classified under Section 6 thereof, the  latter<br \/>\nas  Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates, and\t the<br \/>\nCourt  of  Session heading the\tclassification.\t  Section  9<br \/>\nprovides that every Court of Session shall be presided\tover<br \/>\nby  a  Judge to be appointed by the High  Court.   The\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  may  also  appoint  Additional  Sessions\t Judges\t and<br \/>\nAssistant  Sessions  Judges to exercise\t jurisdiction  in  a<br \/>\nCourt of Session.  The Executive Magistrates have roles\t and<br \/>\nfunctions   assigned  to  them\tunder  the  Code   such\t  as<br \/>\nundertaking  proceedings under Sections 107, 108, 109,\t110,<br \/>\n111,  133 and 145 CrPC.\t Judicial Magistrates, on the  other<br \/>\nhand,  are assigned their roles under the Code primarily  of<br \/>\ntrial  of  offences, as envisaged under Section\t 26  of\t the<br \/>\nCode.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      8.The    High    Court\trecorded     its<br \/>\n\t      understanding   of   the\tnew  role   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      magistracy after the 1973 Code in paragraph  9<br \/>\n\t      of its judgment as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      &#8221;\t The  Code  of\tCriminal  Procedure,   1973,<br \/>\n\t      conferred\t power on the High Court to  appoint<br \/>\n\t      Sessions\tJudge, Magistrates, Chief&#8217;  Judicial<br \/>\n\t      Magistrate  and  Special\tMagistrates  and  to<br \/>\n\t      confer  Magisterial  powers on any  person  or<br \/>\n\t      authority.  Under the new Code, the  Executive<br \/>\n\t      has  nothing  to do with\tthe  appointment  of<br \/>\n\t      Magistrates.   In pursuance of the  provisions<br \/>\n\t      of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,\t the<br \/>\n\t      High   Court  of\tAllahabad  appointed   Chief<br \/>\n\t      Judicial Magistrates and the Magistrates\twith<br \/>\n\t      effect  from 1st April, 1974.  The persons  so<br \/>\n\t      appointed\t are  the  same\t persons  who\twere<br \/>\n\t      earlier  functioning as  Judicial\t Magistrates<br \/>\n\t      who  had\tbeen appointed by the  Governor\t and<br \/>\n\t      were functioning as Judicial Officers.   After<br \/>\n\t      their  appointment by the High Court,  control<br \/>\n\t      over the Magistrates vested in the High Court.<br \/>\n\t      The Governor in order to effectuate the policy<br \/>\n\t      underlying  Article  50  of  the\tConstitution<br \/>\n\t      issued  the impugned notification\t dated\t12th<br \/>\n\t      March,  1975  applying all the  provisions  of<br \/>\n\t      Chapter  VI of Part VI of the Constitution  to<br \/>\n\t      the   existing  class  of\t Magistrates.\t The<br \/>\n\t      intention and purpose behind the issue of\t the<br \/>\n\t      notification  is to make the  Magistracy\tfree<br \/>\n\t      from executive influence and to make them part<br \/>\n\t      of  the  Judicial Service of the\tState  along<br \/>\n\t      with civil judiciary.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      At this place, Articles 233, 234, 235, 236 and<br \/>\n\t      237   from   Part\t VI,  Chapter  VI   of\t the<br \/>\n\t      Constitution may be read with advantage:<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;233.   Appointment of district  judges.-\t (1)<br \/>\n\t      Appointments of persons to be, and the posting<br \/>\n\t      and promotion of, district judges in any State<br \/>\n\t      shall be made by the Governor of the State  in<br \/>\n\t      consultation  with the High  Court  exercising<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction in relation to such State.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (2)A  person not already in the service  of<br \/>\n\t      the  Union  or  of the  State  shall  only  be<br \/>\n\t      eligible\tto be appointed a district judge  if<br \/>\n\t      he has been for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      474<\/span><br \/>\n\t      not  less\t than seven years an advocate  or  a<br \/>\n\t      pleader  and is recommended by the High  Court<br \/>\n\t      for appointment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      234. Recruitment\t of  persons   other   than<br \/>\n\t      district\tjudges\tto  the\t judicial  service.-<br \/>\n\t      Appointment  of  persons other  than  district<br \/>\n\t      judges  to  the judicial service\tof  a  State<br \/>\n\t      shall be made by the Governor of the State  in<br \/>\n\t      accordance  with\trules made by  him  in\tthat<br \/>\n\t      behalf  after  consultation  with\t the   State<br \/>\n\t      Public  Service Commission and with  the\tHigh<br \/>\n\t      Court  exercising jurisdiction in relation  to<br \/>\n\t      such State.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      235. Control  over subordinate  courts.-\tThe<br \/>\n\t      control\tover  district\tcourts\tand   courts<br \/>\n\t      subordinate thereto including the posting\t and<br \/>\n\t      promotion\t of,  and  the grant  of  leave\t to,<br \/>\n\t      persons belonging to the judicial service of a<br \/>\n\t      State  and  holding any post inferior  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      post of district judge shall be vested in\t the<br \/>\n\t      High Court, but nothing in this article  shall<br \/>\n\t      be  construed  as taking away  from  any\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      person any right of appeal which he may  under<br \/>\n\t      the  law\tregulating  the\t conditions  of\t his<br \/>\n\t      service  or as authorising the High  Court  to<br \/>\n\t      deal  with  him otherwise than  in  accordance<br \/>\n\t      with the conditions of his service  prescribed<br \/>\n\t      under such law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      236. Interpretation.- In this Chapter-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (a)   the expression &#8216;district judge&#8217; includes<br \/>\n\t      judge  of\t a  city  civil\t court,\t  additional<br \/>\n\t      district\t judge,\t  joint\t  district    judge,<br \/>\n\t      assistant\t district  judge, chief judge  of  a<br \/>\n\t      small    cause   court,\t chief\t  presidency<br \/>\n\t      magistrate,   additional\t chief\t  presidency<br \/>\n\t      magistrate,    sessions\tjudge,\t  additional<br \/>\n\t      sessions judge and assistant sessions judge;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)   the expression &#8216;judicial service&#8217;  means<br \/>\n\t      a\t service consisting exclusively\t of  persons<br \/>\n\t      intended\tto fill the post of  district  judge<br \/>\n\t      and other civil judicial posts inferior to the<br \/>\n\t      post of district judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      237. Application\tof the provisions  of  this<br \/>\n\t      Chapter\tto  certain  class  or\tclasses\t  of<br \/>\n\t      magistrates.-  The  Governor  may\t by   public<br \/>\n\t      notification   direct   that   the   foregoing<br \/>\n\t      provisions of this Chapter and any rules\tmade<br \/>\n\t      thereunder shall with effect from such date as<br \/>\n\t      may  be fixed by him in that behalf  apply  in<br \/>\n\t      relation\t to   any  class   or\tclasses\t  of<br \/>\n\t      magistrates  in  the State as  they  apply  in<br \/>\n\t      relation to persons appointed to the  judicial<br \/>\n\t      service\tof   the  State\t subject   to\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      exceptions   and\tmodifications  as   may\t  be<br \/>\n\t      specified in the notification.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Much  before the issuance of the impugned\tnotification<br \/>\nthe Government by notification dated 30-9-1967 issued  under<br \/>\nArticle 237 of the Constitution, had directed separation  of<br \/>\nthe   Judicial\t Magistrates\/Judicial  Officers\t  from\t the<br \/>\nExecutive    who   were\t  thereafter   placed\tunder\t the<br \/>\nadministrative control and superintendence of the High Court<br \/>\nwith  effect  from 2-10-1967.  The Government,\tit  appears,<br \/>\nstopped\t thereafter  recruitment to  the  Judicial  Officers<br \/>\nService.   On  the  other  hand\t they  continued  to  remain<br \/>\nineligible  for\t appointment  to a post in  the\t U.P  Higher<br \/>\nJudicial Service by the dictate of Chandra Mohan case2.\t The<br \/>\nJudicial Officers Service thereupon<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">475<\/span><br \/>\nbecame\ta  suffocated and dying cadre, as  members  of\tthat<br \/>\nservice\t were left with no avenues of promotion even  though<br \/>\nmost of them had sufficient experience of criminal  judicial<br \/>\nwork.\tThe  High Court appreciated  their  predicament\t and<br \/>\nmoved  into  the  matter.   The\t State\tGovernment  on\t the<br \/>\nrecommendations\t of  the High Court thought  it\t prudent  to<br \/>\nutilise\t the experience of the Judicial\t Magistrates  trying<br \/>\ncriminal  cases and providing to them avenues of  promotion.<br \/>\nWith  that  end in view, the State of U.P.  issued  the\t two<br \/>\nnotifications impugned before the High Court, as also  here,<br \/>\nthe  effect of which was that the Judicial  Officers  became<br \/>\neligible  for  appointment only to the\tpost  of  Additional<br \/>\nSessions  Judge,  and  the  Judicial  Officers\tService\t was<br \/>\ndeclared as a Judicial Service, becoming a third source\t for<br \/>\nrecruitment  under Rule 6, getting a quota of 15  per  cent.<br \/>\nBut,  in  the event of nonavailability\tof  the\t prospective<br \/>\ncandidates  or exhaustion of their members, the quota  meant<br \/>\nfor Judicial Officers\/Judicial Magistrates was to go to\t add<br \/>\nto  the quota of the U.P. Civil Services  (Judicial  Branch)<br \/>\nvis-a-vis  direct advocate recruits.  Thus in the nature  of<br \/>\nthings, it was a self-consuming measure, working itself\t out<br \/>\nin the foreseeable future.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.Article 237 of the Constitution enables the Governor to<br \/>\napply  the  provisions\tof  Chapter VI of  Part\t VI  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution and any rules made thereunder, to certain class<br \/>\nor  classes  of Magistrates and not to any  other  class  or<br \/>\nclasses of officers.  This is a ladder upon which a class or<br \/>\nclasses of Magistrates in the State can be made to climb and<br \/>\nget transformed, with effect from a certain date, as persons<br \/>\nappointed  to  a Judicial Service of the State,\t subject  to<br \/>\nsuch exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the<br \/>\nnotification.\tThe  Constitution  recognises  the  judicial<br \/>\nelement permeating in the Magistracy, for they deal with the<br \/>\nliberty and property of individuals, functioning as criminal<br \/>\ncourts.\t To put it tersely Magistracy alone is recognized as<br \/>\njudge-material\tmeant for such transformation.\tNow  in\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  notification,\t it is clear  that  the\t promotional<br \/>\navenues\t of  the  Magistrates  stop  at\t the  level  of\t the<br \/>\nAdditional  Sessions Judge, a court which is a\tcreation  of<br \/>\nthe  Code  of  Criminal\t Procedure.   In  no  way  is\tthis<br \/>\ndesignation  to\t be  confused with that\t of  the  Additional<br \/>\nDistrict   Judges.    Under  Article  236,  which   is\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation box for Chapter VI, the inclusive  definition<br \/>\nof  the expression &#8220;District Judge&#8221; includes  an  Additional<br \/>\nSessions Judge but only for the purposes of the Chapter, and<br \/>\nnot for any other purpose.  The Additional Sessions Judge is<br \/>\na   &#8220;District  Judge&#8221;  for  the\t limited  purpose   of\t his<br \/>\nappointment as District Judge in terms of Article 233 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.As  is evident the domain of the present litigation\tis<br \/>\nconfined  to  the  members of  the  U.P.  Judicial  Officers<br \/>\nService,  recruitment to which was stopped after  2-10-1967.<br \/>\nThe  Service thenceforth became subject to all\tsubtractions<br \/>\nbut   no  addition.   The  sweep  of  Article\t237   covers<br \/>\nMagistrates  existing prior to the separation  of  judiciary<br \/>\nfrom the executive, those who may not have been appointed in<br \/>\naccordance  with the rules framed under Article 234  or\t who<br \/>\nmight  not  have been under the control of  the\t High  Court<br \/>\nunder  Article 235.  It is towards achieving that  end\tthat<br \/>\nthe Governor stood<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">476<\/span><br \/>\nempowered   under  Article  237\t to  act  by  means   of   a<br \/>\nnotification,  with such exceptions or modifications, as  he<br \/>\nmight\tconsider  fit.\t The  powers  thus  conferred\twere<br \/>\nunfettered by any restriction.\tThe Governor could apply all<br \/>\nor  only some of the provisions of Chapter IV That here\t the<br \/>\nGovernor  in exercising his power under Article 237,  issued<br \/>\nthe  notification  of  12-3-1975,  classifying\t Magistrates<br \/>\n(including Chief Judicial Magistrates) in the State as those<br \/>\nwho  belong to the Uttar Pradesh Judicial  Officers  Service<br \/>\nand  applying to them all the articles contained in  Chapter<br \/>\nVI of Part VI of the Constitution. barring of course Article<br \/>\n237,  as they apply in relation to persons appointed to\t the<br \/>\nJudicial Service of the State subject to the exceptions\t and<br \/>\nmodifications  namely, (i) the members of the U.P.  Judicial<br \/>\nService Officers shall constitute a Judicial Service to fill<br \/>\nin  the\t post  of Additional Sessions  Judge  only  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of Articles 233 and 235 of the\t Constitution;\t(ii)<br \/>\nU.P  Judicial Officers Service shall be a  service  distinct<br \/>\nand separate from the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch).\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  The  point for consideration before the High  Court  as<br \/>\nalso  here  is\twhether the  Governor  could  transform\t the<br \/>\nexisting  U.P.\tJudicial Officers Service to be\t a  Judicial<br \/>\nService\t of  the  State alongside the  existing\t U.P.  Civil<br \/>\nService\t (Judicial  Branch).   The  following  passage\tfrom<br \/>\nChandra\t Mohan\tcase2  was  put across\tto  contend  that  a<br \/>\ndistinct service could not be created:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Article 237 enables the Governor to implement<br \/>\n\t      the  separation  of  the\tjudiciary  from\t the<br \/>\n\t      executive.   Under this Article, the  Governor<br \/>\n\t      may notify that Articles 233, 234, 235 and 236<br \/>\n\t      of the Constitution will apply to\t magistrates<br \/>\n\t      subject\t to   certain\t modifications\t  or<br \/>\n\t\t\t    exceptions;\t for instance, if the  Governor\t s<br \/>\no<br \/>\n\t      notifies,\t the  said magistrates\twill  become<br \/>\n\t      members  of  the judicial service,  they\twill<br \/>\n\t      have to be appointed in the manner  prescribed<br \/>\n\t      in Article 234, they will be under the control<br \/>\n\t      of  the High Court under Article 235 and\tthey<br \/>\n\t      can  be  appointed as District Judges  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Governor\tunder Article 233(1).  To  state  it<br \/>\n\t      differently,  they will then be integrated  in\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      -the  judicial  service which is\tone  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      sources of recruitment to the post of district<br \/>\n\t      judges.\tIndeed, Article 237  emphasises\t the<br \/>\n\t      fact that till such an integration is  brought<br \/>\n\t      about,  the magistrates are outside the  scope<br \/>\n\t      of the said provisions.  The said view accords<br \/>\n\t      with  the constitutional theme of\t independent<br \/>\n\t      judiciary\t and  the contrary  view  accepts  a<br \/>\n\t      retrograde step.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  Reliance on Chandra Mohan case2 is misplaced as we view<br \/>\nit.  The above passage talks of an instance of action but is<br \/>\nby no means exhaustive.\t The State is not bound to adopt the<br \/>\ncourse of making Magistrates become members of the  existing<br \/>\nJudicial  Service.   They may obviate the  procedure  to  be<br \/>\nfollowed  in  making appointments in the  manner  prescribed<br \/>\nunder  Article\t234.  The State is not bound  to  cause\t any<br \/>\nintegration  so that the Magistrates may become\t members  of<br \/>\nthe  existing  Judicial Service.  No bar anywhere  could  be<br \/>\npointed\t  out\tto   us\t  by   learned\t counsel   for\t the<br \/>\nappellant\/petitioners by which the State could be prohibited<br \/>\nfrom  creating\ta  parallel judicial service  in  which\t the<br \/>\nMagistracy of the kind involved herein was transformed.\t  As<br \/>\nsaid  before, the Constitution recognises, and it  is  plain<br \/>\notherwise, that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">477<\/span><br \/>\nMagistrates perform judicial functions when trying  offences<br \/>\nunder the Indian Penal Code and other statutes, empowered as<br \/>\nthey are under the Code of Criminal Procedure.\tThere  could<br \/>\nthus  be no bar to confining the promotional avenues of\t the<br \/>\nMagistrates to be uptil the Court of the Additional Sessions<br \/>\nJudge  and none other.\tThe grievance of the members of\t the<br \/>\nU.P Civil Service (Judicial Branch) is highly overblown when<br \/>\nit  is scanned to discover that they without functioning  as<br \/>\ncriminal  courts and without gaining any experience in\tthat<br \/>\nfield,\tgo  on\tto become Additional  District\tand  Session<br \/>\nJudges\tmerely on the experience gained on the\tcivil  side.<br \/>\nThis discloses that what is needed at that stage is judicial<br \/>\ntemper.\t  Their\t attempt to thwart the\tpromotional  benefit<br \/>\ngiven\tby  the\t impugned  notification\t to   the   Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrates in becoming Additional Sessions Judges is on the<br \/>\nface  of  it unequal in comparison to  the  service  benefit<br \/>\nobtained  by  the  personnel  of  the  U.P.  Civil   Service<br \/>\n(Judicial  Branch).  The entire matter has to be  viewed  on<br \/>\nthe  touchstone\t of  Article 50\t of  the  Constitution.\t  In<br \/>\nseparating  judiciary from the executive, the  personnel  of<br \/>\njudicial service so retrieved by separation have to be given<br \/>\na  place as a class as members of the judiciary, either-  by<br \/>\nintegration   in  the  existing\t judicial  service   or\t  by<br \/>\ntransformation\tinto  a separate  judicial  service.   There<br \/>\napparently  is no other way to place them.  Articles 233  to<br \/>\n237 would have to be viewed in this light.  On doing so,  we<br \/>\ngo   to\t agree\twith  the  High\t Court\tthat  the   impugned<br \/>\nnotification  of  12-3-1975  and  the  other   consequential<br \/>\nnotifications  stood validly issued by tile  Governor  under<br \/>\nArticle\t 237  of  the Constitution and\tthat  the  erstwhile<br \/>\nMagistrates, members of the U.P. Judicial Officers  Service,<br \/>\nbecame\tmembers of a separate Judicial Service of  the\tsame<br \/>\nname  intended to be promoted as Additional Sessions  Judges<br \/>\nonly  in  the  post meant for the  Additional  District\t and<br \/>\nSessions  Judge and to stay apart alongside the\t U.P.  Civil<br \/>\nService\t (Judicial  Branch).   We also view  that  the\tsaid<br \/>\nservice was validly created.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.Before we conclude, we must notice a three-member Bench<br \/>\ndecision  of  this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/500018\/\">M.L. Sharma v. Union  of  India3<\/a><br \/>\nwherein it was ruled that even if a particular person  comes<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  definition\t given\tunder  Article\t236  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution,  it  is  open to the  State  Government  under<br \/>\nappropriate  rules to classify such officer included in\t the<br \/>\ninclusive  definition not to be a District Judge proper\t and<br \/>\nto  belong  to a category different from that.\tThat  was  a<br \/>\ncase  in  converse where a person claimed to have  become  a<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge by means of the inclusive definition and  to<br \/>\nhave  become, by this logic, a member of the  Haryana  State<br \/>\nSuperior  Judicial Service.  This Court repelled the  claim.<br \/>\nThis case is of no assistance to either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.There  is thus no merit either in the appeal or in  the<br \/>\nwrit  petitions.   All of them fail and\t are  dismissed\t but<br \/>\nwithout any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>3 1992 Supp (2) SCC 430<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">483<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 468, JT 1995 (1) 180 Author: M Punchhi Bench: Punchhi, M.M. PETITIONER: P.K.SARIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/12\/1994 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. AHMADI A.M. (CJ) CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 468 JT 1995 [&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-66434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - 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\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\" \/>\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=\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-05T16:42:15+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T16:42:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3895,\"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\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\",\"name\":\"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-05T16:42:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994\"}]},{\"@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":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - 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\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-05T16:42:15+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994","datePublished":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T16:42:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994"},"wordCount":3895,"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\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994","name":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-05T16:42:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-sarin-vs-state-of-u-p-on-16-december-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Sarin vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 1994"}]},{"@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\/66434","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=66434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}