{"id":69497,"date":"2000-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000"},"modified":"2015-08-13T05:37:27","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T00:07:27","slug":"satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","title":{"rendered":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pattanaik<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: U.C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSATPAL &amp; ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/05\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nU.C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      PATTANAIK,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  order  of the Governor dated 25.1.1999,  granting<br \/>\npardon\tremitting  the\tun-expired portion of  the  sentence<br \/>\npassed\ton  prisoner Shri Siriyans Kumar Jain S\/o  Shri\t Ram<br \/>\nChand  Jain in exercise of power conferred by Article 161 of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution of India read with Section 132 of the Code<br \/>\nof  Criminal Procedure is being assailed, inter alia on\t the<br \/>\nground that the power has been exercised without application<br \/>\nof  mind, and that the said power has been exercised by\t the<br \/>\nGovernor  on  extraneous consideration and even without\t the<br \/>\naid  and  advice  of the Government, namely,  the  concerned<br \/>\nMinister.   The applicants are the brother and widow of\t the<br \/>\ndeceased  Krishan Kumar who was murdered during the election<br \/>\nheld in the year 1987 for the post of President of Municipal<br \/>\nCommittee,  Hansi.   The  prosecution  had  alleged  that  a<br \/>\ngruesome  crime was committed by the accused persons and the<br \/>\nentire\tfamily of the deceased suffered the agony and  pain.<br \/>\nIn  the\t criminal trial the respondent -Siriyans Kumar\tJain<br \/>\nalongwith  four\t other\taccused\t persons  belonging  to\t the<br \/>\nBhartiya Janta Party were tried for having committed offence<br \/>\nunder  Sections 302 read with 149 and 120B as well as  under<br \/>\nSections  392,\t148,  452 and 323 Indian  Penal\t Code.\t The<br \/>\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge  convicted  all  the  five  accused<br \/>\npersons\t and  on  an  appeal the High Court  of\t Punjab\t and<br \/>\nHaryana\t while maintained the conviction of accused  Krishan<br \/>\nKumar  Jakhar and Gurvinder Singh but acquitted the  accused<br \/>\nP.K.   Chaudhary,  Siriyans Jain and Ram Nath  Bhumla.\t The<br \/>\nState  of Haryana preferred appeal against the acquittal  of<br \/>\nthe  aforesaid three accused persons.  The Supreme Court  by<br \/>\njudgment  dated\t 10.12.1998,  set  aside  the  acquittal  of<br \/>\naccused\t Siriyans Kumar Jain, Ram Nath Bhumla but upheld the<br \/>\nacquittal  of  P.K.   Chaudhary.  The  Court  also  directed<br \/>\nSiriyans  Kumar\t Jain  and Ram Nath Bhumla to  surrender  to<br \/>\ncustody\t in  order to serve out the remaining part of  their<br \/>\nsentence.  In setting aside the order of acquittal passed by<br \/>\nthe  High Court the Supreme Court had observed that all\t the<br \/>\nfour  accused  persons\thad gone together to  the  place  of<br \/>\noccurrence  and they were armed with weapons with a definite<br \/>\npurpose\t and, therefore, there was no scope for entertaining<br \/>\nany  doubt regarding their involvement in commission of\t the<br \/>\ncrime and also as regards the said crime that the said crime<br \/>\nhaving\tbeen  committed\t by them in  prosecution  of  common<br \/>\nobject\tof an unlawful assault consisting of them and  other<br \/>\npersons\t who  had  come along with them\t upto  the  factory.<br \/>\nImmediately   after  the  judgment  of\tthis   Court   dated<br \/>\n10.12.1998,  respondent Siriyans Kumar Jain (respondent\t no.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)  in the present Writ Petition instead of surrendering  to<br \/>\nserve  the  sentence,  as directed by this Court,  filed  an<br \/>\napplication  before  the Governor invoking his\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nunder  Article 161 of the Constitution and this\t application<br \/>\nwas  filed  on\t15.1.1999.  The Secretary  to  the  Governor<br \/>\naddressed  a  letter to the Secretary to the  Government  of<br \/>\nHaryana,  Department of Jail requesting for a report in\t the<br \/>\nmatter\tto  be placed before His Excellency the Governor  of<br \/>\nHaryana.  The Appropriate Authority, namely, Joint Secretary<br \/>\nto  the\t Government in the Home Department indicated in\t his<br \/>\nnote  that  the opinion of the Legal Remembrancer should  be<br \/>\nobtained as to whether this is a fit case for exercising the<br \/>\npower  under  Article 161 of the Constitution or  not.\t The<br \/>\nopinion of the Legal Remembrancer was then placed before the<br \/>\nconcerned  Minister  and finally the Chief  Minister  agreed<br \/>\nwith  the  views of the Legal Remembrancer and came  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  this is a fit case where discretion  given<br \/>\nunder  Article\t161  of the Constitution  be  exercised\t and<br \/>\nrelief prayed for be granted.  On the basis of the aforesaid<br \/>\nadvise\tof  the Chief Minister the Governor finally  granted<br \/>\npardon, as already stated.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   K.T.S.  Tulsi, learned senior counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor  the petitioners contended that the very order passed by<br \/>\nthe  Governor  would indicate total non-application of\tmind<br \/>\nand,  therefore, the said order cannot sustain the  judicial<br \/>\nscrutiny  and must be set aside.  He also contended that  if<br \/>\nthe order of the Governor is examined it will indicate as to<br \/>\nthe  uncanny haste with which the entire matter was disposed<br \/>\nof,  without  scant  regard for the judgment of\t this  Court<br \/>\nwhereunder the Court convicted the present respondent no.  3<br \/>\nunder  Section 302\/149 IPC and 120-B and the final order  of<br \/>\nthe   Governor\temanated  even\t before\t respondent  no.   3<br \/>\nsurrendered  to serve the sentence though the impugned order<br \/>\ncategorically  indicates that the prisoner is in jail.\t Mr.<br \/>\nTulsi  also contended that the Governor has passed the order<br \/>\nwithout\t being aided and advised by the Council of Ministers<br \/>\nand, therefore, the order is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   R.K.Jain,  learned senior counsel appearing\t for<br \/>\nthe  State of Haryana and Mr.  D.D.  Thakur, learned  senior<br \/>\ncounsel\t appearing for respondent no.  3, however, contended<br \/>\nthat  the power to grant pardon and remission of sentence is<br \/>\nessentially  an\t executive function to be exercised  by\t the<br \/>\nHead  of  the State after taking into consideration  various<br \/>\nmatters and the Court is precluded from examining the wisdom<br \/>\nor  expediency of exercise of the said power.  According  to<br \/>\nthe  learned  counsel the power of judicial review,  as\t has<br \/>\nbeen  held by this Court in Kehar Singhs case is of a  very<br \/>\nlimited\t nature,  namely,  whether  the\t authority  who\t had<br \/>\nexercised  the\tpower had the jurisdiction to  exercise\t the<br \/>\nsame,  and whether the impugned order goes beyond the  power<br \/>\nconferred  by  law upon the authority who made it, and\tthis<br \/>\nbeing  the position the grounds on which the impugned  order<br \/>\nis  being  attacked essentially pertain to the propriety  of<br \/>\nthe Governor in the matter of exercising power under Article<br \/>\n161  after the conviction and sentence passed by this  Court<br \/>\nand as such, it should not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  cannot  be any dispute with the proposition  of<br \/>\nlaw  that the power of granting pardon under Article 161  is<br \/>\nvery  wide and do not contain any limitation as to the\ttime<br \/>\non  which and the occasion on which and the circumstances in<br \/>\nwhich  the  said  powers could be exercised.  But  the\tsaid<br \/>\npower  being  a\t constitutional\t power\tconferred  upon\t the<br \/>\nGovernor  by the Constitution is amenable to judicial review<br \/>\non  certain limited grounds.  The Court, therefore, would be<br \/>\njustified  in  interfering  with  an  order  passed  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernor  in  exercise\tof power under Article\t161  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  if the Governor is found to have exercised the<br \/>\npower  himself without being advised by the Government or if<br \/>\nthe Governor transgresses the jurisdiction in exercising the<br \/>\nsame  or it is established that the Governor has passed\t the<br \/>\norder  without application of mind or the order in  question<br \/>\nis  a mala fide one or the Governor has passed the order  on<br \/>\nsome  extraneous  consideration.   The\textent\tof  judicial<br \/>\nreview\tin  relation  to  an order of  the  President  under<br \/>\nArticle\t 72 of the Constitution of India was subject  matter<br \/>\nof  consideration before this Court in Kehar Singhs case<br \/>\n1989  (1)  Supreme Court Cases 204 , where the\tConstitution<br \/>\nBench had observed It appears to us clear that the question<br \/>\nas  to the area of the Presidents power under Article 72 of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution falls squarely within the judicial  domain<br \/>\nand can be examined by the Court by way of judicial review.<br \/>\nThe  Court  had\t further  indicated  that  as  regards\tthe<br \/>\nconsiderations\tto  be\tapplied\t by  the  President  to\t the<br \/>\nPetition  we need say nothing more as the law in this behalf<br \/>\nhave  already been laid down by this Court in Marurams case<br \/>\n 1981 (1) Supreme Court Cases 107.  What has been stated in<br \/>\nrelation  to the Presidents power under Article 72  equally<br \/>\napplies\t to  the power of Governor under Article 161 of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\tIn Marurams case (supra) the Court came\t to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion that the power under Articles 72 and 161 can<br \/>\nbe exercised by the Central and State Governments and not by<br \/>\nthe  President or Governor on their own.  The advice of\t the<br \/>\nappropriate  Government\t binds the head of the\tState.\t The<br \/>\nCourt  also  came to the conclusion that considerations\t for<br \/>\nexercise of power under Articles 72 or 161 may be myriad and<br \/>\ntheir  occasions  protean, and are left to  the\t appropriate<br \/>\nGovernment,  but no consideration nor occasion can be wholly<br \/>\nirrelevant, irrational, discriminatory or malafide.  Only in<br \/>\nthese  rare  cases will the Court examine the exercise.\t  In<br \/>\nparagraph  62 of the judgment in Maru Rams case (supra) the<br \/>\nCourt had observed :- An issue of deeper import demands our<br \/>\nconsideration  at this stage of the discussion.\t Wide as the<br \/>\npower  of  pardon, commutation and release (Articles 72\t and\n<\/p>\n<p>161)  is,  it cannot run riot;\tfor no legal power  can\t run<br \/>\nunruly\tlike John Gilpin on the horse but must keep sensibly<br \/>\nto  a  steady  course.\t Here,\twe  come  upon\tthe   second<br \/>\nconstitutional\tfundamental which underlies the\t submissions<br \/>\nof  counsel.   It  is  that   all  public  power,  including<br \/>\nconstitutional power, shall never be exercisable arbitrarily<br \/>\nor  mala fide and, ordinarily, guidelines for fair and equal<br \/>\nexecution  are\tguarantors of the valid play of\t power.\t  We<br \/>\nproceed\t on  the  basis that these axioms are valid  in\t our<br \/>\nconstitutional order.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  was  further held that the power to pardon,  grant<br \/>\nremission  and commutation, being of the greatest moment for<br \/>\nthe  liberty of the citizen, cannot be a law unto itself but<br \/>\nmust be informed by the finer canons of constitutionalism.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Three  Judge  Bench of this Court recently  considered<br \/>\nthe  question  of judicial review against an order  granting<br \/>\npardon by the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution<br \/>\nin the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1144349\/\">Swaran Singh vs.\t State of U.P.\tand Others<\/a><br \/>\n(1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 75.  In that case an MLA of the<br \/>\nState  Assembly had been convicted of the offence of  murder<br \/>\nand  within a period of less than two years he succeeded  in<br \/>\ncoming\tout  of the prison as the Governor of Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\ngranted\t remission of the remaining long period of his\tlife<br \/>\nsentence.   The son of the deceased moved the Allahabad High<br \/>\nCourt  challenging the aforesaid action of the Governor\t and<br \/>\nthe  same having been dismissed the matter had been  brought<br \/>\nto  this  Court\t by grant of Special Leave  Petition.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt  had come to the conclusion that the Governor was\t not<br \/>\ntold  of certain vital facts concerning the prisoner such as<br \/>\nhis  involvement  in  five other criminal cases\t of  serious<br \/>\noffences, the rejection of his earlier clemency petition and<br \/>\nthe report of the jail authority that his conduct inside the<br \/>\njail was far from satisfactory and out of two years and five<br \/>\nmonths\the was supposed to have been in jail, he was in fact<br \/>\non  parole  during the substantial part thereof.  The  Court<br \/>\nfurther\t held  that  when the Governor was not\tposted\twith<br \/>\nmaterial  facts the Governor was apparently deprived of\t the<br \/>\nopportunity to exercise the powers in a fair and just manner<br \/>\nand   the  order  fringes  on  arbitrariness.\tThe   Court,<br \/>\ntherefore,  quashed  the  order\t of   the  Governor  with  a<br \/>\ndirection to re-consider the petition of the prisoner in the<br \/>\nlight of the materials which the Governor had no occasion to<br \/>\nknow earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Bearing  in mind the parameters of judicial review  in<br \/>\nrelation  to an order granting pardon by the Governor,\twhen<br \/>\nwe  examine the case in hand, the conclusion is irresistible<br \/>\nthat  the Governor had not applied his mind to the  material<br \/>\non  record  and\t has mechanically passed the order  just  to<br \/>\nallow  the prisoner to overcome the conviction and  sentence<br \/>\npassed by this Court.  It is indeed curious to note that the<br \/>\norder dated 25.1.1999 clearly indicates that the Governor of<br \/>\nHaryana\t is pleased to grant pardon remitting the  unexpired<br \/>\nportion\t of  the sentence passed on prisoner Siriyans  Kumar<br \/>\nJain  confined\tin the Central Jail, Hissar.  But  the\tsaid<br \/>\nprisoner  was  not confined in the Central Jail,  Hissar  on<br \/>\nthat date and on the other hand after obtaining the order of<br \/>\npardon\tand  remission of sentence to give an appearance  of<br \/>\ncompliance to the order of Supreme Court said Siriyans Kumar<br \/>\nJain  surrendered before the Court of Sessions Judge, Hissar<br \/>\non  2.2.1999  and also was released on the very same day  in<br \/>\nview  of the order of Governor dated 25.1.1999.\t If by order<br \/>\ndated  25.1.1999 the accused has already been granted pardon<br \/>\nand  there  has been a remission of the sentence then  there<br \/>\nwas  no\t reason\t for  him to go\t and  surrender\t before\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge on 2.2.99.  That apart, the Governor has not<br \/>\nbeen  made  aware  of  as to what is  the  total  period  of<br \/>\nsentence the accused has really undergone, and if at all has<br \/>\nundergone  any\tsentence.  When an accused is  convicted  of<br \/>\nheinous\t offence of murder and is sentenced to\timprisonment<br \/>\nof  life the authority who has been conferred with power  to<br \/>\ngrant  pardon and remission of sentence under Article 161 of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  must\t be  made aware\t of  the  period  of<br \/>\nsentence  in  fact undergone by the said convict as well  as<br \/>\nhis  conduct and behaviour while he has been undergoing\t the<br \/>\nsentence  which\t would\tbe all\tgermane\t considerations\t for<br \/>\nexercise  of  the power.  Not being aware of  such  material<br \/>\nfacts  would  tend  to\tmake an\t order\tof  granting  pardon<br \/>\narbitrary  and irrational, as has been held by this Court in<br \/>\nSwaran\tSinghs\tcase  (supra).\tThe entire  file  had  been<br \/>\nproduced  before  us  and we notice the uncanny\t haste\twith<br \/>\nwhich  the file has been processed and the unusual  interest<br \/>\nand  zeal shown by the authorities in the matter of exercise<br \/>\nof  power  to grant pardon.  We also fail to understand\t how<br \/>\nthe  order  in question could show that the prisoner  is  in<br \/>\njail  while  in\t fact  he  was free at\tlarge  and  had\t not<br \/>\nsurrendered  to\t serve\tthe   sentence\tnotwithstanding\t the<br \/>\npositive  direction of this Court dated 10.12.1998 disposing<br \/>\nof the appeal filed by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>      So  far  as  the contention that Governor\t passed\t the<br \/>\norder  on  his own without being advised by the\t Council  of<br \/>\nMinisters,  we\tdo not find any substance in the  same.\t  We<br \/>\nhave  scrutinised the relevant file that was produced before<br \/>\nus  and it clearly demonstrates that the matter was examined<br \/>\nby   the  Law  Department,   the  concerned   Administrative<br \/>\nDepartment  and\t was finally endorsed by the Chief  Minister<br \/>\nafter  which  the Governor passed the order.   Consequently,<br \/>\nthere  is  no  substance in the submission  of\tMr.   K.T.S.<br \/>\nTulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.<br \/>\nIn  the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to<br \/>\nthe  conclusion that the order in question has been vitiated<br \/>\nand  the Governor has not been advised properly with all the<br \/>\nrelevant  materials and, therefore, we have no other  option<br \/>\nthan   to  quash  the  said   order  dated  15.1.1999.\t  We<br \/>\naccordingly  quash  the impugned order dated  25.1.1999\t and<br \/>\nallow this Writ Petition, but, however quashing of the order<br \/>\ndoes  not de bar the Governor in reconsidering the matter in<br \/>\nthe  light  of the relevant materials and act in  accordance<br \/>\nwith the constitutional provision and discretion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 Author: Pattanaik Bench: U.C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik PETITIONER: SATPAL &amp; ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/05\/2000 BENCH: U.C.Banerjee, G.B.Pattanaik JUDGMENT: PATTANAIK,J. The order of the Governor dated 25.1.1999, granting pardon remitting the un-expired portion [&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-69497","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>Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - 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\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-13T00:07:27+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T00:07:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2472,\"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\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\",\"name\":\"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-13T00:07:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - 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\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-13T00:07:27+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T00:07:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000"},"wordCount":2472,"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\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000","name":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-13T00:07:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satpal-another-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-1-may-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satpal &amp; Another vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors on 1 May, 2000"}]},{"@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\/69497","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=69497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}