{"id":96582,"date":"1951-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1951-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951"},"modified":"2015-08-29T16:07:04","modified_gmt":"2015-08-29T10:37:04","slug":"tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","title":{"rendered":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 174, \t\t 1951 SCR 212<\/div>\n
Author: H J Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTARAPADA DE AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/01\/1951\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\n\nCITATION:\n 1951 AIR  174\t\t  1951 SCR  212\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1952 SC 350\t (11)\n E\t    1974 SC 183\t (32)\n R\t    1979 SC1925\t (8,13)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India, 1950, Art.\t 22  (5)--Preventive\ndetention-Duty\tto communicate grounds of detention as\tsoon\nas may be--DUty to give earliest opportunity to make  repre-\nsentation--Grounds furnished after 15 days--\"  Supplementary\ngrounds\"    furnished\t after\t 4    months--Legality\t  of\ndetention--Vague  grounds  and\tirrelevant  grounds  distin-\nguishd--Supply\tof grounds first and details  laterLegality-\nServing printed orders on same date on several\tpersons-Bona\nfides of detention.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    A large number of persons were detained under the Bengal\nCriminal Law Amendment Act, 1930.  The validity of this\t Act\nwas  being  challenged in the High  Court.   Meanwhile,\t the\nPreventive  Detention Act of 1950 was passed on 26th  Febru-\nary, 1950, and on the same date detention orders under\tthis\nAct  were  served on them.  The grounds\t of  detention\twere\nserved on them on the 14th of March, and on the 16th of July\nthe  Government\t served on them \"supplementary\tgrounds\"  in\ncontinuation of the grounds already furnished on the 14th of\nMarch.\t A  second set of grounds were communicated  to\t the\nappellants on the 22nd or 23rd of July. They applied to\t the\nHigh Court of Calcutta for writs of habeas corpus contending\nthat  the  orders  of  detention  were\tinvalid\t on  various\ngrounds.   The\tHigh Court rejected these  applications\t and\nthey appealed to the' Supreme Court.\n  Held per KANIA C.J., FAZAL ALI, MUKHERJEA and\t CHANDRASEK-\nHARA AIYAR JJ.--(i) that in the particular circumstances of\nthe case, especially in view of the fact that a large number\nof causes had to be dealt with on the passing of the Preven-\ntive Detention Act in February, 1950, it cannot be said that\nthe grounds were not communicated to the appellants \"as soon\nas nay be\" within the meaning of Art. 22 (5);\t\t '\n213\n    (ii)  it  cannot be held that the  appellants  were\t not\ngiven  the \"earliest opportunity\" to make a  representation,\nas  required by Art. 22(5), merely because  further  details\nand  facts were communicated to the appellants on  the\t16th\nJuly  and  22nd July as these later communications  did\t not\ncontain\t any new or additional grounds\t(though\t they\twere\ndescribed  as \"supplementary grounds \") but  only  furnished\ndetails of the heads of grounds furnished on the 14th March;\n    (iii)  merely  because a ground is vague  it  cannot  be\nconsidered that it is no ground at all and therefore  cannot\nbe  sufficient\tto ' satisfy '.the authorities; a  '  vague'\nground\tdoes not stand on the same footing as an  irrelevant\nground, which can have no connection at all with the  satis-\nfaction of the Government;\n    (iv) the sufficiency of the grounds for the purposes  of\nsatisfaction of the Government is not a matter for  examina-\ntion  by the court; their sufficiency to give  the  detained\nperson the earliest opportunity to make a representation can\nbe examined by the court, but only from that point of view.\n    Held  also, per DAS J.--The fact that a large number  of\nfresh orders of detention were made overnight did not neces-\nsarily indicate bad faith on the part of the authorities  in\nthe  circumstances  of these cases as  the  authorities\t had\nalready\t applied their minds to the suspected activities  of\neach  of the detenus and were satisfied that with a view  to\nprevent them from  doing some prejudicial act, it was neces-\nsary to detain them.\n  The  State  of Bombay, v. Atma Ram  Sridhar  Vaidya<\/a>  supra\nP.167 followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t CRIMINAL  APPELATE JURISDICTION: (Case\t No.
\n24 of 1050).  Appeal under Art. 132 (1) of the\tConstitution
\nof  India, against the judgment and order of the High  Court
\nof Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
\n361 of 1050.\n<\/p>\n
    A.C. Gupta\tand  Sudhansu  Sekhar  Mukherjee (Arun Kumar
\nDutta and S.N. Mukherjee, with them) for the appellants.
\n    M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, (B. Sen, with him)\t for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1051.  Jan.\t 25. The Judgment of Kania C.J.,  Fazl\tAli,
\nMukherjea  and\tChandrasekhara Aiyar JJ., was  delivered  by
\nKania  C.J. Patanjali Sastri and Das JJ. delivered  separate
\njudgments.\n<\/p>\n
KANIA  C.J.–This  is  an appeal under article\t132  of\t the
\nConstitution of India from the judgment of the
\n214<\/span>
\nHigh  Court  at Calcutta, which rejected the  habeas  corpus
\npetitions of the appellants. The detention orders under\t the
\nPreventive Detention Act, 1950, in all cases were served  on
\nthe  appellants on the 26th February, 1950, and the  grounds
\nfor  the detention were served on the 14th March, 1950.\t  By
\nway of specimen we quote one of them:\n<\/p>\n
    “You  are  beings detained in pursuance of\ta  detention
\norder made under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of subsection
\n(1)of section a of the Preventive Detention Act,  1950, (Act
\nIV of 1950), on\t the  following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t That you have been assisting the operations of\t the
\nCommunist  Party  of India, which along with  its  volunteer
\norganisations has been declared unlawful by Government under
\nsection 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act XIV
\nof 1908), and which has for its object commission of rioting
\nwith deadly weapons, robbery, dacoity, arson and murder\t and
\npossession  and use of arms and ammunitions  and  explosives
\nand  thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the\t maintenance
\nof public order and that it is necessary to prevent you from
\nacting in such manner.\n<\/p>\n
    (2) That as a member of the C.P.I. on its Kishan  front,
\nyou  have  fomented trouble amongst the peasants  of  Howrah
\nDistrict  and incited them to acts of lawlessness  and\tvio-
\nlence:\n<\/p>\n
    and\t have thereby acted in a manner prejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance of public order:\n<\/p>\n
    That as a worker of the C.P.I. you have tried to  foment
\ntrouble\t amongst the tramways men and other workers at\tCal-
\ncutta and in speeches which you delivered at the  University
\nHall and other places you actually incited them to resort to
\nacts of violence and lawlessness; and have thereby acted  in
\na manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”\n<\/p>\n
    On the 16th of July, 1950, the Government of West Bengal
\nserved\ton  the appellants “in continuation of\tthe  grounds
\nalready furnished on the 14th of March, 1950,  supplementary
\ngrounds”  for their detention a specimen of which is in\t the
\nfollowing terms:–\n<\/p>\n
215<\/span><\/p>\n
    “In continuation of the grounds already furnished  under
\norder  No. 6163 H.S. dated 14th March, 1950, you  are  being
\ninformed  of  the supplementary grounds for  your  detention
\nwhich are as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
    You\t as  the  Secretary of the  Bengal  Chatkar  Mazdoor
\nUnion, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Federa-
\ntion of Mercantile Employees’ Union, as the honorary report-
\ner of the ‘Khabar’ newspaper (C. P.I. organ) carried on\t the
\ndisruptive  programme of the C.P.I. On the 29th July,  1948,
\nyou  along with others led a procession at Howrah  preaching
\ndiscontent against Government and have been thus acting in a
\nmanner\tprejudicial to the maintenance\tof public order. ”
\n    As\tin the case of the first grounds, these\t “supplemen-
\ntary grounds” were also served on each appellant separately.
\nThe appellants applied for a Rule of habeas corpus separate-
\nly  under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and  on
\nthe  21st July, 1950, the High Court issued a Rule  in\teach
\ncase  on the Chief Secretary to the Government of West\tBen-
\ngal.   A  second  set of grounds were  communicated  to\t the
\nappellants on the 22nd or 23rd of July, 1950.  A specimen of
\none is in the following terms:–\n<\/p>\n
    “In continuation of the grounds already furnished  under
\norder  No.  12820 dated 14th July, 1950, you are  being\t in-
\nformed of the supplementary grounds for your detention which
\nare as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
    1. That in a meeting held at the University Institute on
\nthe  19th  March, 1947, under the auspices of  the  Calcutta
\nTramway\t Workers’  Union, you held out the threat  that\t any
\nattempt to take out tram cars on the 20th March, 1947, would
\nbe  inviting disaster and you further said that if  the\t au-
\nthorities  tried  to resume the tram service  you  and\tyour
\nfriends would not hesitate to remove the tram lines and\t cut
\nthe wires.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tThat  on the 13th June, 1948, you  presided  over  a
\nmeeting under  the  auspices  of  the  Students’  Federation
\n(C. P.I. controlled) and delivered speech
\n28<\/span>
\n216<\/span>
\nadvocating withdrawal of ban on the Communist Party of India
\nand its organ Swadhinta.”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t High Court after considering the whole\t matter\t re-
\njected\tthe petitions of the appellants and  the  appellants
\nhave thereupon come in appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe High Court, it was first contended on behalf  of
\nthe  appellants that the communication of the grounds  dated
\nthe  14th March was not a compliance with article  22  (5)of
\nthe Constitution of India, as those grounds were not  commu-
\nnicated\t “as soon as may be.” The High Court  rejected\tthis
\ncontention.   Under the circumstances of the case, we  agree
\nwith the High Court and are unable to hold that in  furnish-
\ning the grounds dated the 14th March, 1950, the\t authorities
\nhad failed to act in accordance with the procedure laid down
\nin  article  22 (5) of the Constitution.  Under\t the  Bengal
\nCriminal  Law  Amendment Act, 1930, a very large  number  of
\npersons\t were detained. The validity of that Act  was  being
\nchallenged  in the High Court and the judgment was  expected
\nto  be\tdelivered  towards the end of  February,  1950.\t The
\nPreventive Detention Act, 1950, was passed by the Parliament
\nof  India  in  the last week of February,  1950,  and  these
\norders\ton  all\t those detenus were served on  the  26th  of
\nFebruary,  1950. Having regard to the fact that the  Provin-
\ncial  Government  had  thus suddenly to deal  with  a  large
\nnumber\tof  cases on one day, we are unable to\taccept\tthis
\ncontention of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    On behalf of the appellants it was next urged that there
\nhas  been a non-compliance with the procedure laid  down  in
\narticle\t 22  (s)of  the Constitution and section  7  of\t the
\nPreventive Detention Act in the manner of supplying  grounds
\nto  the appellants resulting in not providing to the  appel-
\nlants  the  earliest opportunity to make  a  representation,
\nwhich  they had a right to make. In the\t judgment  delivered
\ntoday in Case No. 22 of 1950(1) we have discussed in  detail
\nthe nature of the two rights conferred under article 22 (5).
\nWe  have  to  apply those principles to the  facts  of\tthis
\nappeal for its decision.\n<\/p>\n
(11 Supra, P. 167.\n<\/p>\n
217<\/span><\/p>\n
    When  the  authorities sent their  second  communication
\ndated  16th July,  1950,  to  the  appellants they described
\nit  as\t“in continuation of the grounds\t already  furnished”
\nand   as  the  “supplementary grounds for  your\t detention”.
\nRelying\t on the wording of this communication it was  argued
\nthat  these were additional grounds which were furnished  to
\nthe  detenu  and therefore the\tprocedure  prescribed  under
\narticle\t 22 (5) had not been followed.\tIt was\targued\tthat
\nthe  obligation to communicate grounds “as soon as  may\t be”
\nwas absolute.  The grounds for detention must be before\t the
\nProvincial  Government before they could be satisfied  about
\nthe necessity for making the detention order. If the grounds
\nbefore\tthe detaining authorities on the 26th  of  February,
\n1950, were only those which they communicated on the 14th of
\nMarch,\tthey  cannot  support the  detention  on  additional
\ngrounds\t which\twere not before them on that day  and  which
\nthey set out in the second communication four months  later.
\nIt  was also contended that the fact of\t this  communication
\nshowed that the authorities were not satisfied on the origi-
\nnal grounds and had therefore put forth these  supplementary
\ngrounds\t as an afterthought. In our opinion these  arguments
\ncannot\tbe accepted. A ‘description of the contents  of\t the
\nsecond\tcommunication  as “supplementary grounds”  does\t not
\nnecessarily make them additional or new grounds. One has  to
\nlook  at  the  contents to find out  whether  they  are\t new
\ngrounds\t as  explained\tin our judgment in Case\t No.  92  of
\n1950(1).  Examining the contents of the later  communication
\nin  that way we find that they only furnish details  of\t the
\nsecond\theads  of the grounds furnished to  the\t appropriate
\nappellant on 14th March, 1950, in respect of his activities.
\nWe are unable to treat them as new grounds and we agree with
\nthe High Court in its conclusion that these are not fresh or
\nnew grounds.  We do not think it proper to consider the true
\neffect\tof  the communication only by  reading\tits  opening
\nwords.\tThe whole of it must be read and considered  togeth-
\ner.  The contention that the authorities were not  satisfied
\non the original
\n(1) Supra, p. 167.\n<\/p>\n
218<\/span><\/p>\n
grounds\t and therefore put forth this. communication as\t the
\nsupplemental grounds is again unsound.\tThe fact that  these
\ndetails\t were communicated later does not  necessarily\tshow
\nthat  they were not within the knowledge of the\t authorities
\nwhen  they sent the communication dated the 14th  of  March.
\nThe contention that this communication of the 16th of  July,
\n1950, was not “as soon as may be”, has to be rejected having
\nregard to the principles set out in our judgment in Case No.
\n22 of 1950.  The facts in each case have to to be taken into
\nconsideration and if the detained person contends that\tthis
\npart  of the procedure prescribed in article 22 (5) was\t not
\ncomplied with, the authorities will have to place  materials
\nbefore the court to refute that contention.  In the  present
\ncase  the High Court has considered that there has  been  no
\ninfringement of this procedural law and we see no reason  to
\ncome to a different conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas next argued that the grounds being\tvague,\tthey
\ncould not be considered as grounds at all and therefore they
\ncould  not be sufficient “to satisfy” the  authorities.\t  On
\nthis point we have nothing to add to what we have stated  in
\nour  judgment  in  Case No. 22 of 1950.\t We  are  unable  to
\naccept the contention that “vague grounds” stand on the same
\nfooting\t as “irrelevant grounds”.  An irrelevant ground\t has
\nno connection at all with the satisfaction of the Provincial
\nGovernment  which  makes the  order of\tdetention.  For\t the
\nreasons stated in that judgment we are also unable to accept
\nthe  contention that if the grounds are vague and no  repre-
\nsentation  is possible there can be no satisfaction  of\t the
\nauthority  as  required under section 3\t of  the  Preventive
\nDetention  Act.\t This argument mixes up\t two  objects.\t The
\nsufficiency  of the grounds, which gives rise to the  satis-
\nfaction\t of the Provincial Government, is not a\t matter\t for
\nexamination by the court. The sufficiency of the grounds  to
\ngive the detained person the earliest opportunity to make  a
\nrepresentation\tcan be examined by the court, but only\tfrom
\nthat  point of view. We are therefore unable to\t accept\t the
\ncontention that the quality and characteristic of
\n219<\/span>
\nthe grounds should be the same for both tests. On the  ques-
\ntion  of satisfaction, as has been often stated, one  person
\nmay  be,  but  another may not be,  satisfied  on  the\tsame
\ngrounds.   That aspect however is not for the  determination
\nof  the court, having regard to the words used in  the\tAct.
\nThe second part of the enquiry is clearly open to the  court
\nunder article 22 (5). We are therefore unable to accept\t the
\nargument that if the grounds are not sufficient or  adequate
\nfor  making the representation the grounds cannot be  suffi-
\ncient for the subjective satisfaction of the authority.
\n    As\tregards the grounds furnished by the  Government  in
\neach  case in its first communication, it is  sufficient  to
\nnotice\tthat  while the first ground is common\tto  all\t the
\nappellants,  the second ground is different in\tmost  cases.
\nThe High Court has considered the case of each appellant  in
\nrespect of the communication dated the 14th of March,  1950,
\nsent  to him. In their opinion those grounds are not  vague.
\nThey  have held that the procedural requirement to give\t the
\ndetained person the earliest opportunity to make a represen-
\ntation\thas not been infringed by the communication  of\t the
\ngrounds of the 14th of March and by the subsequent  communi-
\ncation\tmade to the appellants in July.\t This point was\t not
\nseriously pressed before us.  After hearing counsel for\t the
\nappellant we see no reason to differ from the conclusion  of
\nthe  High  Court  on this point.   The result  is  that\t the
\nappeal fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    PATANJALI  SASTRI J.–This appeal was heard\t along\twith
\nCase No. 22 of 1950 (The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar
\nVaidya)<\/a>(1),  as the main question involved was the same.  In
\nthe  view I have expressed on that question in\tmy  judgment
\ndelivered today in that case, this appeal cannot succeed and
\nI agree that it should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    DAS J.–The same important questions have been raised in
\nthis  appeal by 100 detenus against an order of a  Bench  of
\nthe Calcutta High Court as were raised
\n(1) Supra, p. 167,
\n220<\/span>
\nby the detenu in the appeal of the State of Bombay in  which
\njudgment  has  just  been delivered.  One  additional  point
\nraised in this appeal was that the fact that a large  number
\nof fresh orders of detention were made “overnight” indicates
\nbad  faith on the part of the authorities, for the  authori-
\nties  could not have applied their minds to each  individual
\ncase. I am unable to accept this contention as correct.\t The
\nauthorities had already applied their minds to the suspected
\nactivities  of each of the detenus and were  satisfied\tthat
\nwith a view to prevent them from doing some prejudicial\t act
\nof  a particular kind it was necessary to make an  order  of
\ndetention  against  them under the local Acts.\tThere  being
\ndoubt  as to the validity of the local Acts and the  Preven-
\ntive  Detention Act having been passed in the  meantime\t the
\nquestion was  to make a fresh order under the new Act.\t The
\nminds  of the authorities having already been made up as  to
\nthe expediency of making an order of detention against them,
\nan elaborate application of mind, such as is now  suggested,
\ndoes not appear to me to be necessary at all. I do not think
\nthere was any failure of duty on the part of the authorities
\nwhich  will establish bad faith on their part. In  my  view,
\nfor reasons stated in my judgment in the other appeal, there
\nbeing no proof of any mala fides on the part of the authori-
\nties,  no  fundamental rights of the petitioners  have\tbeen
\ninfringed.  In the case of each of the detenus,\t apart\tfrom
\nthe  common ground, there were one or more specific  grounds
\nof detention which are quite sufficient to enable the detenu
\nconcerned  to make his representation. Therefore, the  ques-
\ntion of supplementary particulars does not arise at all.  In
\nmy  opinion the\t conclusions arrived at by Roxburgh J.\twere
\ncorrect and well-founded, and, therefore, this appeal should
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: P.K. Chatterjee.
\nAgent for the respondent: P.K. Bose.\n<\/p>\n
221<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 174, 1951 SCR 212 Author: H J Kania Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj) PETITIONER: TARAPADA DE AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/01\/1951 BENCH: KANIA, HIRALAL J. […]<\/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-96582","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - 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\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\" \/>\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=\"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-29T10:37:04+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951\",\"datePublished\":\"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T10:37:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\"},\"wordCount\":2558,\"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\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\",\"name\":\"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T10:37:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951\"}]},{\"@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":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - 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\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-29T10:37:04+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951","datePublished":"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T10:37:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951"},"wordCount":2558,"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\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951","name":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1951-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T10:37:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarapada-de-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-25-january-1951#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarapada De And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1951"}]},{"@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\/96582","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=96582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96582\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}