{"id":95723,"date":"1975-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975"},"modified":"2015-10-11T20:41:01","modified_gmt":"2015-10-11T15:11:01","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 277, \t\t 1976 SCR (1) 641<\/div>\n
Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n
Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARI RAM NATHWANI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/09\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  277\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 641\n 1975 SCC  (2) 517\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1985 SC1391\t (2)\n\n\nACT:\n     Minimum Wages.  Act (11  of 1948) ss. 5(C)(e), 7 and 9-\nAppointment  of\t  \"government  officers\t on  committees\t and\nAdvisory  Board\t as  independent  members-Propriety-Advisory\nBoard\tappointing   its   own\t sub-committees-Propriety-S.\n5(1)(a), scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 5(1)  of the  Minimum Wages  Act 1948, provides\ntwo types of procedure for fixing and revising minimum wages\nin respect  of any  scheduled employment. Section 7 provides\nfor the\t appointment of an Advisory- Board. If the procedure\nprovided in  s.5(1) (a)\t is followed  consultation with\t the\nAdvisory Board\tis not\tu-required while  it is mandatory in\ncase the  procedure in\tcl. (b)\t is followed. Under cl. (a),\nthe Government\tcan  appoint  as  many\tCommittees  or\tsub-\ncommittees as  it considers  necessary to hold inquiries and\nadvise it in respect of such fixation or revision. Section 9\nrequires  that\t every\tcommittee,  sub\t committee  and\t the\nAdvisory Board\tshall consist  of representatives  of\t the\nemployers and  employees in  equal numbers  and\t independent\npersons, whose\tnumber shall  not exceed  1\/3 of  the  total\nnumber of  members. One\t of the independent persons shall be\nappointed Chairman. [643 G-644 F]\n     In the  present case  the State Government followed the\nprocedure under\t cl.  (a)  and\tappointed  a  committee\t for\nrevising the  wages with respect to employment in Mica Mines\nwhich  is  a  scheduled\t employment  under  the\t   Act.\t The\ncommittee consisted  of five  members, two representative of\nthe employers,.\t two of\t the employes  and a  Professor\t of'\nEconomics of  a Government college as an independent member.\nIt submitted  its report  to the  Government. The Government\nreferred the matter to the Advisory Board which consisted of\n21 members,  8 representatives\tof the\temployers. 8  of the\nemployees and  5 government officers as independent members.\nThe Advisory Board appointed a sub committee to further into\nmatter. In  the sub-committee  were taken  same persons\t who\nwere, not  members of  the Advisory Board. The sub committee\nmade  its  recommendations  and\t the  Advisory\tBoard  after\nconsidering those  recommendations also submitted its report\nand the\t State Government accepted it with slight variations\nand fixed  minimum wages  by a\tnotification. The respondent\nchallenged its\tvalidity and  the High\tCourt struck it down\nholding that, (i) the constitution of The Wage Committee and\nthe Advisory  Board was\t not  valid  because  the  economics\nprofessor and  the 5  government member were not independent\nmembers,  (ii)\t the  Board   had  exceeded  its  power.  in\nappointing a  sub-committee. and.  (iii) the Board committed\nan   illegality\t   in\ttaking\t  into\t consideration\t its\nrecommendations\t while\t submitting  its   report   to\t the\nGovernment.\n     Allowing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD :(1)\tIt may\tbe  that  in  certain  circumstances\npersons who  are in  service of' the Government may cease to\nhave an\t independent character\tif the\tquestion  arises  of\nfixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment. In. the\ncase of\t fixation of minimum wages in a scheduled employment\nin which  the Government  is  directly\tinterested,  whether\nGovernment servants  can come in the category of independent\nmembers in  addition to\t the Government\t officer who come on\nthe Board  or Committee\t as representatives of the employers\nis a  matter which  has to  be considered  in an appropriate\ncase. But  in the  instant case the constitution of the Wage\nCommittee or  the Advisory  Board was  not bad as Government\nwas not\t an employer  in the  Mica Mines in respect of which\nminimum wages were fixed. [646 A E]\n     The State\tof Andhra  Pradesh v.  Narayana Velur  Beedi\nManufacturing\tFactory\t  and others<\/a>\t [1973] I Labour Law\nJournal, 476, followed.\n642\n     (2) The Advisory Board can device its own procedure and\ncollect\t information   by  appointment\t of   sub-committees\nconsisting only\t of some  of its  members. But\tthe Advisory\nBoard has  no power  to appoint\t a rival subcommittee to the\none  appointed\t by  the   Government  and   take  in\tsuch\nsubcommittee, persons  who are\tnot members  of the Board as\nwas  done  in  this  case.  Therefore.\tthe  Advisory  Board\ncommitted an  irregularity in  appointing the  sub-committee\nand taking into consideration its report. [646 E-G]\n     (3)  But\tit  does   not\tfollow\t that  the  impugned\nnotification based upon the report of the Advisory Board was\nbad even is the irregularity is assumed to be an illegality.\nThe recommendations  made by the Board even on consideration\nof the\treport of  its sub-committee  was only\tthat of\t the\nAdvisor\t  Board. Since the procedure was under s. 5(1)(a) it\nwas not\t mandatory for Government to take the opinion of the\nAdvisory Board\tat all. Therefore, the impugned notification\nand the proceedings pursuant to it cannot be quashed [646 G-\n647 B]\n     Gulamahamed  Tarasaheb,   a   Bidi\t  factory   by\t its\nproprietors Shamrao  and   other v.  State   of Bombay\tand'\nothers A.I.R.. 1962 Bombay 97 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1800 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated the 25th January., 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in
\nD.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 406 of l 966.\n<\/p>\n
     S. M. Jain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     UNTWALIA, J.-The  hearing of  this appeal\tfiled by the
\nState of  Rajasthan and\t another by  special leave proceeded
\nex-parte against  the respondents.  After examining  all the
\npros and  cons of  the dispute\tinvolved in this appeal with
\nthe assistance\tof the learned counsel for the appellants we
\nhave come  to the  conclusion  that  the  appeal  should  be
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
     From time\tto time the Government of Rajasthan fixed or
\nrevised the minimum rates of wages for employees in the Mica
\nMines throughout  the State  of Rajasthan under section 5(2)
\nof the\tMinimum Wages  Act, 1948-Central  Act  11  of  1948-
\nhereinafter. called  the Act.  The employment  in  the\tMica
\nMines is  a  scheduled\temployment  within  the\t meaning  of
\nsection 2(g)  of the  Act. Eventually  the minimum  rates of
\nwages were  fixed by  the Government by a notification dated
\nthe 31\tJuly, 1965,  the validity of which was challenged in
\nthe Rajasthan  High Court  by several  employers in the Mica
\nMines in Civil Writ No. 406\/1966 and 15 other writs. Several
\nproceedings  initiated\t on  the   basis  of   the  impugned
\nnotification were  also challenged by the employers. A Bench
\nof the\tRajasthan High\tCourt allowed the writ applications,
\nquashed the  impugned notification and the proceedings taken
\nin pursuance  thereof. This  appeal arises out of Civil Writ
\nNo. 406\/1966 in which the employer is respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The notification  dated  31-7-1965\t was  challenged  on
\nseveral rounds and we will be concerned with some of them in
\nthis appeal.  The relevant  facts arc these. For the purpose
\nof  revising   the  minimum   wages  fixed  by\tthe  earlier
\nnotification  dated   the  24th-April,\t 1959,\t The   State
\nGovernment in  the  first  instance  appointed\ta  Committee
\nconsisting of  five members  on\t the  17th  May.  1962.\t The
\nconstitution of the
\n643<\/span>
\nCommittee was,\thowever, revised  by notification  dated the
\n26th  November,\t 1962.\tThis  committee\t consisted  of\tfive
\nmembers,  two\trepresentatives\t of   the   employers,\t two
\nrepresentatives of  the employees  and one  Professor K.  S.
\nMathur, Head  of the Department of Economics Degree College,
\nAjmer. The  last was  taken as\tan independent member of the
\ncommittee. It  submitted its  report to\t the Government. The
\nmatter was  referred by the Government to the Advisory Board
\nconstituted under  section 9  of the  Act. It appears that a
\nSub-committed as  appointed by the Advisory Board to go into
\nthe matter  further and\t to consider the report of the\tWage
\nCommittee appointed  earlier by\t the government\t on the 26th
\nNovember,  1962′.  In  the  Sub-committee  were\t taken\tsome
\npersons who were not members of the Advisory Board. The Sub-
\ncommittee also\tsubmitted is  report to\t the Advisory  Board
\nwhich consisted of 21 members, 8 employers’ representatives,
\na  employees’  representatives\tand  S\tGovernment  officers
\nappointed  in  the  category  of  independent  members.\t The
\nproceedings of the Board dated the 7th May, 1965 showed that
\nit considered  the recommendations of the Wage Committee and
\nthe Sub-committee  and then  submitted its report containing
\nits recommendations  of the  wage  structure  suggesting  an
\nalternative scale  of minimum wages according as the linking
\nof Dearness  Allowance with  the consumer-price-indices. The
\nState Government  accepted the wage structure recommended by
\nthe Board  but with  slight variation  in the  matter of the
\nlinking basis  with  Dearness  Allowance  and  made  it\t all
\ninclusive rates of minimum wages per month.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High
\nCourt who  delivered the  leading judgment in the case, on a
\nconsideration of the various divergent decisions of the High
\nCourts came  to the  conclusion that the constitution of the
\nWage Committee\twas  not  valid\t as  the  Professor  of\t the
\nGovernment College  was not an independent member. Similarly
\nthe constitution  of the  Advisory Board was also bad as the
\nfive Government\t officers on  the Board could not be said to
\nbe independent\tmembers. He  was also  of the  view that the
\nBoard had  exceeded to\tpower in  appointing a Sub-committee
\nadd committed an illegality in taking into consideration its
\nreport while  making recommendations  to the Government. The
\nother learned  Judge with  some amount\tof  reservation\t and
\ndiffidence agreed  to the  order  proposed  by\tthe  learned
\nActing Chief  Justice.\tIt  may\t be  stated  here  that\t the
\nfixation of  the minimum ware ill the notification dated the
\n31st July, 1965 was also challenged before the High Court on
\ncertain grounds\t relating to  the merits of the fixation but
\nthe High Court has over-ruled such objections.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 5\tof the Act provides the procedure for fixing
\nand revising  minimum wages  in\t respect  of  any  scheduled
\nemployment. There  are two  types of  procedure indicated in
\nclauses (a)  and (b)  of sub-section  (1). Obviously  in the
\npresent case  the procedure followed was the one provided in
\nclause (a).  We shall now read sub-section (2) of  section 5
\nwith the proviso appended thereto:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “After considering  the advice of the committee or
\n     committees appointed  under clause\t (a) of\t sub-section
\n     (1),  or  as  the\tcase  may  be,\tall  representations
\n     received by it before the
\n644<\/span>
\n     date specified  in the notification under clause (b) of
\n     that sub  section, the appropriate Government shall, by
\n     notification in  the official  Gazette, fix, or, as the
\n     case may  be, revise  the minimum\trates  of  wages  in
\n     respect of\t each scheduled\t employment, and unless such
\n     notification otherwise  provides, it  shall  come\tinto
\n     force on  the expiry  of three  months from the date of
\n     its issue:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t where\tthe  appropriate  Government
\n     proposes to  revise the  minimum rates  of wages by the
\n     mode specified  in clause\t(b) of\tsub-section (1), the
\n     appropriate Government shall consult the Advisory Board
\n     also ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It would  be noticed that the power to fix the minimum wages
\nis the\tGovernment. Under  clause (e) of sub-section (1) the
\nGovernment can appoint as many committees and sub-committees
\ndo it considers necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in
\nrespect of  such fixation  or  revision\t of  minimum  wares.
\nSection 7 of the Act says:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “For the  purpose of\tco-ordinating  the  work  of
\n     committees and sub-committees appointed under section 5
\n     and advising  the appropriate  Government generally  in
\n     the matter\t of fixing  and revising  minimum  rates  of
\n     wages, the\t appropriate  Government  shall\t appoint  an
\n     Advisory Board.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If  the\t procedure  provided  in  clause  (a)  is  followed,
\nconsolation with the Advisory Board is not required in terms
\nbut is\tresorted  to  while  it\t is  mandatory\tin  case  of
\nprocedure (b). Section 9 provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Each of  the committees,  sub-committees and\t the
\n     Advisory Board shall consist of persons to be nominated
\n     by the  appropriate Government  representing  employers
\n     and employees  in the  scheduled employments, who shall
\n     be\t equal\t in  number,  and  independent\tpersons\t not
\n     exceeding one-third of its total number of members; one
\n     of such  independent persons  shall  be  appointed\t the
\n     Chairman by the appropriate Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The question  as to  whether a\tGovernment officer  could be
\nappointed on  Committee., Sub-committee\t to or\tthe Advisory
\nBoard as  an independent  person came  up for  consideration
\nbefore the  various High  Courts. Majority  of them took the
\nview that  it could  be so. A few High Court, however took a
\ncontrary view.\tIn the\tjudgment under appeal the High Court
\nor Rajasthan  has fallen  in the  line of  the minority. But
\nrecently be point has been set at rest by a decision of this
\nCourt in  The State  of Andhra\tPradesh v.  Narayana   Velur
\nBeedi Manufacturing  Factory and others<\/a> (1) . We consider it
\nappropriate to quote the whole of graph 10 or that judgment:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In our judgment the view which has prevailed with
\n     the Majority  of the High Courts must be sustained. The
\n     committee or  the advisory board can only tender advice
\n     which is not binding on the government While fixing the
\n     minimum wages
\n(1) [1973] 1 Labour Law Journal 476
\n645<\/span>
\n     or revising  the same as the case may be of course, the
\n     Government is  expected, particularly  in\tthe  present
\n     democratic set  up, to  take that advice seriously into
\n     consideration and\tact on\tit but it is not bound to do
\n     so.  The\tlanguage  of  s.  9  does  not\tcontain\t any
\n     indication whatsoever that persons in the employment of
\n     the Government  would be  excluded from the category of
\n     independent persons.  These words have essentially been
\n     employed in  contradistinction  to\t representatives  of
\n     employers and employees. In other words, apart from the
\n     representatives of employers and employees there should
\n     be persons\t who should  be independent of them. It does
\n     not follow\t that persons  in the service an employee of
\n     the Government  were meant\t to  be\t excluded  and\tthey
\n     cannot be regarded as independent persons vis-a-vis the
\n     representatives of\t the employers\tand employees. Apart
\n     from this the presence of high Government officials who
\n     may have actual working knowledge about the problems of
\n     employers and  employee  can  afford  a  good  deal  of
\n     guidance and assistance in formulating the advice which
\n     is to  be\ttendered  under\t S.  9\tto  the\t appropriate
\n     Government. It  may be  that in  certain  circumstances
\n     such per  sons who are in the service of the Government
\n     may cease\tto have\t an  independent  character  if\t the
\n     question arise  of\t fixation  of  minimum\twages  in  a
\n     scheduled\t employment   in   which   the\t appropriate
\n     Government is directly interested. It would, therefore,
\n     depend upon  the facts  of each particular case whether
\n     the persons  who have  been appointed  from out  of the
\n     class  of\t independent  persons  can  be\tregarded  as
\n     independent or  not. But the mere fact that they happen
\n     to be  Government officials or Government servants will
\n     not  divest   them\t of  the  character  of\t independent
\n     persons.  We  are\tnot  impressed\twith  the  reasoning
\n     adopted that  a Government official will have a bias or
\n     that he  may favour  the policy  which the\t appropriate
\n     Government may  be inclined to adopt because when he is
\n     a member  of an  advisory\tcommittee  or  board  he  is
\n     expected to  give an  impartial and  independent advice
\n     and not  merely carry  out what  the Government  may be
\n     inclined to  do. Government  officials are\t responsible
\n     persons and it cannot be said that they are not capable
\n     of taking a detached and impartial view.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  learned   Acting  Chief   Justice\tof  the\t High  Court
\nconsidered many\t of such decisions of the High Courts in his
\njudgment and posed a question “Suppose, the Government is an
\nemployer in  the particular  scheduled employment  for which
\nwages are  sought to  be fixed under the Act. employment for
\nbe postulated  in  such\t a  case  that\tan  officer  of\t the
\nGovernment can\t  property  appointed  as  an  `independent’
\nperson on  any of  the statutory  bodies  in  question?”  An
\nanswer in  the negative\t was given.  He then  said  “I\tneed
\nhardly add  in this connection that if the Government be not
\nan employer  in any  of the  scheduled employments, there II
\nwould be  no objection\tto the\tGovernment officers  of\t the
\nrequisite  calibre   and  experience   being  appointed\t  as
\nindependent persons  within the meaning of the section”. But
\nthinking that  in the  list of\tthe scheduled employment are
\nincluded “employments such as public motor transport.\n<\/p>\n
646<\/span><\/p>\n
and construction  and  maintenance  of\troads  and  building
\noperations and\t may be, for aught we know, in certain other
\nemployments also”  in  which  the  State  Government  is  an
\nemployer and  the Advisory  Board constituted  is meant\t for
\nadvising the  Government in  those employments\talso he held
\nthe constitution  of the  Advisory Board  to be\t bad. In the
\nextract which we have given. above from the decision of this
\nCourt a\t sentence is  to be  found resembling  the  line  of
\nthinking of the learned Acting Chief Justice. This Court has
\nsaid “It may be that in certain 1 circumstances such persons
\nwho are\t in the\t service of the Government may cease to have
\nan independent\tcharacter if the question arises of fixation
\nof minimum  wages in  a scheduled  employment in  which\t the
\nappropriate Government\tis directly interested” The question
\nas to  whether in  such a  situation  a\t Government  officer
\nappointed on  the Board\t or a  Committee can  be said  to be
\nindependent  member  or\t not  will  have  to  be  cautiously
\nconsidered when an appropriate occasion arises for the same.
\nAfter all,  even in such cases the final authority fixing or
\nrevising the  minimum wages in a scheduled employment is the
\nGovernment. (Government officers can undoubtedly come on the
\nBoard or  the Committee as representatives of the employers.
\nWhether in  such a  situation more  Government servants\t can
\ncome in\t the  category\tof  the\t independent  members  is  a
\nquestion which\tis open\t to serious debate and doubt. But in
\nthe instant  case on the authority of this Court it is clear
\nthat the  constitution of  either the  Wage Committee or the
\nAdvisory Board\tWas not\t bad, is  the Government  was not an
\nemployer in  the Mica  Mines in\t respect of which employment
\nonly  minimum\twages  were   fixed  by\t  revision  in\t the
\nnotification dated the 31st July, 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     No procedure  has been  prescribed in the Act as to the
\nmethod which  the Advisory  Board is  to adopt before making
\nits recommendations  to the  State Government. It can devise
\nits  own   procedure  and   collect  some   informations  by
\nappointment of\ta sub-committee\t consisting only  of some of
\nits members  as was  the case  in the decision of the Bombay
\nHigh Court  in Gulamhamed  Tarasaheb, a\t Bidi Factory by its
\nproprietors Shamrao  and  others  v.  State  of\t Bombay\t and
\nothers(1). But\tsurely the  Advisory Board  has no  power to
\nappoint a  rival sub-  I. Committee  to the one appointed by
\nthe Government and take in such subcommittee persons who are
\nnot members  of the  Board, as\twas done in this case. There
\nis, therefore, no doubt that the Advisory Board committed an
\nirregularity in\t taking into consideration the report of the
\nsub-committee invalidly appointed by it. Does it necessarily
\nfollow from  this that the impugned notification dated 31-7-
\n1965 based  upon the  report of\t the Advisory Board which in
\nits turn had taken into consideration not only the report of
\nthe Committee  appointed by  the Government but also that of
\nthe sub-committee  appointed by\t the  Board  is\t bad?  on  a
\ncareful consideration  of the  matter we  give our answer in
\nthe negative. The irregularity, even characterising it as an
\nillegality, committed  by the  Advisory Board in taking into
\nconsideration the  report of  the sub-committee was not such
\nas to  nullify its  recommendation contained  in its report,
\nor, in\tany event,  the final  decision\t of  the  Government
\ncontained  in\tthe  impugned\tnotification.  It   must  be
\nremembered that\t the procedure followed in this case was the
\none provided in section 5(1)
\n     (1) A.I.R.. 1962 Bombay 97.\n<\/p>\n
647<\/span><\/p>\n
(a) in which case it was not mandatory for the Government to
\ntake the  opinion of  the  Advisory\\Board.  After  all,\t the
\nrecommendations made  by the  Board even on consideration of
\nthe report  of the  Sub-committee along\t with  that  of\t the
\nCommittee was  the advice  of the  Board. The Government did
\naccept it but accepted it after some modification. In such a
\nsituation we  do not think that the notification dated 31-7-
\n1965 deserves  invalidation. It\t follows as a corollary that
\nthe proceedings\t started pursuant to the notification cannot
\nalso be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result we\tallow this  appeal, set\t aside.\t the
\njudgment and  order  of\t the  High  Court  and\tdismiss\t the
\nconnected writ\tapplication filed by respondent No. 1. Since
\nhe has not appeared there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n648<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 277, 1976 SCR (1) 641 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI RAM NATHWANI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/09\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, […]<\/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-95723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-11T15:11:01+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T15:11:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2563,\"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\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-11T15:11:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-11T15:11:01+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975","datePublished":"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T15:11:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975"},"wordCount":2563,"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\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975","name":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-11T15:11:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-another-vs-hari-ram-nathwani-ors-on-3-september-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan & Another vs Hari Ram Nathwani & Ors on 3 September, 1975"}]},{"@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\/95723","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=95723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}