{"id":91590,"date":"2002-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2"},"modified":"2017-05-01T08:00:15","modified_gmt":"2017-05-01T02:30:15","slug":"vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 23\/04\/2002  \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN           \n\nWRIT PETITION No. 13611 OF 2002    \nAND  \nWPMP NO.18300  OF 2002     \n\nVijayakumari \nW\/o.K.Dhanasekar                                       ..Petitioner\n\n                               Vs.\n\n1.Home Secretary  \n  Prohibition and Excise Dept.,\n  Fort St.George,\n  Chennai-9\n\n2.The Commissioner of Police, \n  Greater Chennai,\n  Egmore, Chennai-8                        .. Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>Forpetitioner :: Mr.T.K.Sampath<br \/>\nFor respondents:: I.Subramaniam, Public Prosecutor <\/p>\n<p>       Writ petition filed under Art.226 of The Constitution of India praying<br \/>\nforthe issue of a writ of mandamus, as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>:OR D E R <\/p>\n<p>       The petitioner has approached this court seeking for the  issue  of  a<br \/>\nwrit of  mandamus directing the first respondent not to invoke the provisions<br \/>\nofThe Tamil Nadu Prevention of  Dangerous  Activities  of  Bootleggers,  drug<br \/>\noffenders,Goondas, Immoral T ic offenders, forest offenders and slum grabbers<br \/>\nAct, 1982  (Act  14  of  1982) against the petitioner&#8217;s husband K.Dhanasekar,<br \/>\nS\/o,KarupaDevar confined at Central Prison, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2.  Heard Mr.T.K.Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nandMr.I.Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor on  this  court  directing  to<br \/>\ntakenotice.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3.   According  to the petitioner her husband Danasekar is a Municipal<br \/>\nCouncillorof K.K.Nagar Division in Chenani  Corporation,  he  is  a  Managing<br \/>\nDirectorof A.K.Securities Pvt., Ltd., and also an income tax assessee holding<br \/>\npermanentaccount  Number.    s  also stated that her husband is a D.M.K.Party<br \/>\nSecretaryof K.K.Nagar Division and has social  status,besides  doing  several<br \/>\npublic services,  such  as  eliminating selling of illicit arrack and curbing<br \/>\nactivitiesunder immoral trafficking act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.  It is alleged  that  due  to  change  in  Government,  the  Police<br \/>\npersonnelare trying to foist several cases against the said Danasekar just to<br \/>\ndefamehim.    It  is  stated  that during the year 2002 three cases have been<br \/>\nfoistedagainst Danasekar by R.  hok Nagar Police  Station,  namely  in  Crime<br \/>\nNo.19\/2002 for  allged  offences  under sections 147, 148,336, 427 and 506(2)<br \/>\nIPC,Crime No.487\/2002, for alleged offences under sectinos  325,  and  506(2)<br \/>\nand Crime  No.513\/2002  for  alleged  offences  under sections 34 1, 307, and<br \/>\n506(2)IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>       5.  The petitioner alleges one Venkataraju, former personal  assistant<br \/>\nto the  present  Chief  Minister is the person who is trying to influence the<br \/>\npolice. It is the allegation of the petitioner that all the cases are foisted<br \/>\nagainsther husband with ew to detain him under the said Tamil Nadu Act  14\/82<br \/>\nas a Goonda just to tarnish his good name and fame in the midst of the people<br \/>\nandpolitically finish him of once for all and to  liquidate  him  physically.<br \/>\nIt is  stated  that  the  petitioner and her husban d belong to a respectable<br \/>\nfamily,her husband is a graduate in Economics and he is not a street rowdy to<br \/>\nbetermed as Goonda.  It is alleged that  the  police  personnel  deliberately<br \/>\ndescribe her  husband  Danasekar  as  a  Goonda  and  if her husband is to be<br \/>\ndetained,the family reputation is on stake and they will be put to shame  and<br \/>\nignomyamong  the  public  and relatives.  Hence the present writ petition has<br \/>\nbeenfiled for the relief of writ of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n<p>       6.  Mr.T.K.Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner also  drew  the<br \/>\nattention of  the  court  to  the  additional  affidavit filed at the time of<br \/>\nhearing. In the additional affidavit, it is alleged that her husband has been<br \/>\nimplicatedin several case lsely at the instance of the said Venkataraju.   It<br \/>\nisfurther  stated  that  Human  Rights Commission has been approached.  It is<br \/>\nalsostated that the Inspector of Police, R.3 Police Station openly  proclaims<br \/>\nthathe would foist cases and detain Dhanasekar under Act 14\/82.\n<\/p>\n<p>       7.   It  is  further  stated  that  the  said  Dhanasekar  went to R.7<br \/>\nK.K.NagarPolice Station to seek permission for conducting public  meeting  on<br \/>\n1.4.2002, and  he was beaten brutally and was shifted from one Police Station<br \/>\ntoanother Police Station and ally he  has  been  implicated  as  one  of  the<br \/>\naccusedin the murder of one Jayakumar, said to have been done to death during<br \/>\nthemonth  of  October,  2001.  The police are vindictive since Dhanasekar has<br \/>\nlodgeda complaint before the Human Rights Commission.  Therefore  a  writ  of<br \/>\nmandamushas to be issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>       8.   Per contra, Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor contended<br \/>\nthatthe relief of mandamus cannot be granted and drew the  attention  of  the<br \/>\nCourt to  Ar.22(5) of The Constitution of India as well as two pronouncements<br \/>\nofthe Supreme Court conte g that no mandamus as prayed for could be issued on<br \/>\nmereapprehension of the petitioner.  The learned  Public  Prosecutor  pointed<br \/>\nout that  on  the  own  showing of the petitioner, her husband is involved in<br \/>\ngravecrimes and more than four crimes have been registered with  in  a  short<br \/>\nperiod of four months for grave offences, including offence under section 302<br \/>\nIPC. However, this court will not be justified in going into the  details  of<br \/>\nthe crimes  or  expressing  any  opinion  since  it does not arise for consid<br \/>\nerationat all at this stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>       9.  The point that arise for consideration is:\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether a  writ  of  mandamus  could  be  issued  as  prayed  forbearing  the<br \/>\nrespondentsfrom ordering detention of Dhanasekaran?\n<\/p>\n<p>       10.   Section  2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14\/82 defines the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;goonda&#8221;. Section 3 confers power of detention on the  State  Government  and<br \/>\nsub section  (2)  of  Section  3 provides for delegation of the said power of<br \/>\ndetentionon the Commissioner o lice in so far as  the  Metropolis.    Section<br \/>\n3(1)could very well be invoked by the detaining authority if he is<br \/>\nsatisfied that  the  detenu  answers  the  description  of  a Goonda or other<br \/>\ncategoryand not otherwise.  If the detaining authority act  honestly  and  in<br \/>\ngood faith,  in  making  an  order  of  detention, on being satisfied on such<br \/>\ninformationbeing placed before him and the detaining authority complies  with<br \/>\ntherequirements  of  Art.22  of  The  Constitution.   The satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndetainingauthority in this  respect  is  purely  a  subjective  satisfaction.<br \/>\nHence, it  cannot  be interfered at the thresh hold by issue of a mandamus on<br \/>\nmereapprehensions.  It cannot be assumed that  there  will  be  violation  of<br \/>\nstatutory provisions  of  Act  14\/82  by  the second responde nt, and on mere<br \/>\napprehensionof the petitioner, no writ of mandamus could be issued.\n<\/p>\n<p>       11.  In the present case the petitioner has made certain averments  as<br \/>\nagainst the  Station  House Officer, namely the Inspector of Police, as if he<br \/>\nhadproclaimed that he will see that  the  petitioner&#8217;s  husband  is  detained<br \/>\nunderthe Act 14\/82 as a Go <\/p>\n<p>atisfactionin terms of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14\/82.  No allegations<br \/>\nhave been  made  against  second respondent such as mala fide or want of bona<br \/>\nfidesor vindictiveness.  Therefore, this  court  will  not  be  justified  in<br \/>\nissuing a  writ  of  mandamus at this stage, nor a case has been made out for<br \/>\nissueof writ of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n<p>       12.  This court while applying the tests laid down by the Apex  Court,<br \/>\nwhere judicial  review  could  be  exercised  to interfere with the orders of<br \/>\ndetention,this court holds that it will not be justified in issuing a writ of<br \/>\nmandamusas none of those nds had neither been pointed out, nor been set  out,<br \/>\nnormade out.\n<\/p>\n<p>       13.   The  Apex Court in SAYED TAHER BAWAMIYA Vs JOINT SECRETARY TOTHE<br \/>\nGOVT. OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 56 while  following  its<br \/>\nearlierdecision  in  Additional  Secretary  to  the  Govt of India, Vs.  Alka<br \/>\nSubhashGadia, reported in 1992 p.  (1)  SCC  496  laid  down  the  tests  fro<br \/>\nexerciseof equitable jurisdiction under Art.226 and Art.32.\n<\/p>\n<p>       14.  In that respect, the Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;6.   This  court in Alka Subhash Gadia case was also concerned with a<br \/>\nmattewhere the detention order had not been served but  the  High  Court  had<br \/>\nentertainedthe  petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.  This court<br \/>\nheldthat equitable jurisdic  under  Article  226  and  Article  32  which  is<br \/>\ndiscretionary in  nature  would not be exercised in a case where the proposed<br \/>\ndetenusuccessfully evades the service of the order.    The  Court,l  however,<br \/>\nnoted that  the  courts  have  the  necessary  power  in appropriate cases to<br \/>\ninterferewith the detention order at the pr-execution stage but the scope for<br \/>\ninterferenceis very limited.  It was held that the courts will  interfere  at<br \/>\nthe pre-execution  stage  with the detention orders only after they are prima<br \/>\nfaciesati sfied&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>       (i)     that the impugned order is not  passed  under  the  Act  under<br \/>\nwhichit is purported to have been passed,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (ii)    that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (iii)that it is passed for a wrong purpose,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (iv)    that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (v)     that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>       7.   As  we  see  it,  the present case does not fall under any of the<br \/>\naforesaidfive exceptions for the court to interfere.  It was  contended  that<br \/>\ntheseexceptions  are  not  exhaustive.    We  are  unable  to agree with this<br \/>\nsubmission. Alka Subhash Gadia Case s that it is only in these five types  of<br \/>\ninstances that  the  court  may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under<br \/>\nArticle226 or Article 32 at the pre-execution  stage.    The  petitioner  had<br \/>\nsought to  contend that the order which was passed was vague, ext raneous and<br \/>\nonirrelevant grounds but there is no material for making such an averment for<br \/>\nthesimple reason that the order of detention and the  grounds  on  which  the<br \/>\nsaid order  is passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has<br \/>\nnotyet bee n executed.  The petitioner does not have a copy o  the  same  and<br \/>\ntherefore it  is  not open to the petitioner to contend that the non-existent<br \/>\norderwas passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>       15.  In the said case the order  of  detention  has  been  challenged.<br \/>\nTestshave  been laid down to exercise the power of Judicial Review.  The very<br \/>\nsametest could be applied even for issue of a writ of mandamus, such as,<\/p>\n<p>       (i)     that the impugned order is not  passed  under  the  Act  under<br \/>\nwhichit is purported to have been passed,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (ii)    that ii is sought to be executed against a wrong person,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (iii)that it is passed for a wrong purpose,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (iv)    that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds,\n<\/p>\n<p>       (v)     that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>       16.  In the present case, no such ground has been set out or advanced.<br \/>\nAllthat the petitioner averred is that she apprehends detention.       On<br \/>\nmere apprehension,  this  court  will  not  be justified in issuing a writ of<br \/>\nmandamusas no case at all has been out on the facts set out in the  affidavit<br \/>\nfiled in  support of the writ petition, nor it is a case where the respondent<br \/>\nhasno authority at all to exercise its power  under  section  3  of  the  Act<br \/>\n14\/82, nor  allegations  of  malice  or  mala fides have even be en suggested<br \/>\nagainstthe second respondent, who is yet to apply his mind, only if  proposal<br \/>\nisplaced before him.\n<\/p>\n<p>       17.   While following the above pronouncements of the Apex Court, this<br \/>\ncourtholds that no case has been made out for issue of a writ of mandamus and<br \/>\nthewrit  petition  is  dismissed.    Consequently,  connected  WPMP  is  also<br \/>\ndismissed.  However,  it is made r that if an order of detention is passed on<br \/>\nanyfuture date, it is well open to the petitioner to challenge  the  same  by<br \/>\nraisingone or more of the grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:yes<br \/>\nInternet;yes<br \/>\ngkv<br \/>\n23-04-2002 <\/p>\n<p>To,\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Home Secretary<br \/>\nProhibitionand Excise Dept.,<br \/>\nFortSt.George,<br \/>\nChennai-9 <\/p>\n<p>2. The Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\nGreaterChennai,<br \/>\nEgmore,Chennai-8  <\/p>\n<p>E.PADMANABHAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Orderin<br \/>\nW.P.No;13611of 2002  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/04\/2002 Coram THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE E.PADMANABHAN WRIT PETITION No. 13611 OF 2002 AND WPMP NO.18300 OF 2002 Vijayakumari W\/o.K.Dhanasekar ..Petitioner Vs. 1.Home Secretary Prohibition and Excise Dept., Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - 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\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-01T02:30:15+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-01T02:30:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":1809,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-01T02:30:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - 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\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-01T02:30:15+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-01T02:30:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2"},"wordCount":1809,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2","name":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-01T02:30:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakumari-vs-home-secretary-on-23-april-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijayakumari vs Home Secretary on 23 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/91590","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=91590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}