{"id":169794,"date":"2017-11-20T11:46:55","date_gmt":"2017-11-20T06:16:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=169794"},"modified":"2017-11-20T11:46:55","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T06:16:55","slug":"decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jammu and Kashmir High Court:<\/strong> The Court recently dealt with a case wherein the petitioners had previously requested the respondents to withhold the building of a new school on a certain new premise after it having sustained damages because of a flood in its previous location, since the construction would case heavy burden on the state exchequer. After repeated refusals to consider the request, the petitioners approached the Court to pass an order in their favor.<\/p>\n

The Court held that it is manifest that the power and the authority of the Courts to examine the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy of the Government is limited in its scope and extent. It held that the Courts can sit in the judgment of the executive only in case it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or is opposed to any statutory provision or is manifestly arbitrary. It held that the decision of the political executive in constructing a school at a particular place is not amenable to judicial review as, on the face of it, it is neither violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens nor is it opposite to the provisions of the Constitution or any statutory provisions nor is it manifestly arbitrary and particularly when both the damaged building and the building under construction are said to be housed on the bank of river Afzire and to cap it all, there is no document on record to substantiate and support the plea of the petitioners that the school building is being constructed on the bank of the river despite the availability of an alternate space.<\/p>\n

The Court referred to Inhabitants of Township Dangiwacha<\/em> v. State<\/em>, OWP 563\/2011, wherein it had cited several judgments to substantiate its reasoning. In Directorate of Film Festivals<\/em> v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain<\/em>, (2007) 4 SCC 737<\/a>, the Court held that \u201cCourts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.\u201d It also cited Chief Constable of the North Wales Police<\/em> v. Evans,\u00a0<\/em>[1982] 1 WLR 1155<\/a> wherein it was held, \u201cThe purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made\u201d. [Residents of Village Chowdar Gund v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 667<\/a>, decided on 10.11.2017]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Court recently dealt with a case wherein the petitioners had previously requested the respondents to withhold <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3042],"class_list":["post-169794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Judicial_Review"],"yoast_head":"\nDecision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions | SCC Times<\/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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Court recently dealt with a case wherein the petitioners had previously requested the respondents to withhold\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-11-20T06:16:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/JK-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/\",\"name\":\"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-11-20T06:16:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions | SCC Times","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions","og_description":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Court recently dealt with a case wherein the petitioners had previously requested the respondents to withhold","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-11-20T06:16:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/JK-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/","name":"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-11-20T06:16:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/20\/decision-political-executive-not-amenable-judicial-review-unless-face-violative-fundamental-rights-constitutional-statutory-provisions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Decision of political executive is not amenable to judicial review unless on the face of it, it is violative of fundamental rights or constitutional or statutory provisions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":235365,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/04\/cant-allow-judicial-officers-to-club-their-services-rendered-as-advocates-to-claim-eligibility-for-elevation-as-high-court-judge-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":0},"title":"Can’t allow Judicial officers to club their services rendered as\u00a0advocates to claim eligibility for elevation as High Court judge: SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has dismissed the claim of certain District Judges to club their services rendered as\u00a0advocates with\u00a0the\u00a0service\u00a0rendered by\u00a0them\u00a0as\u00a0Judicial\u00a0Officers,\u00a0for\u00a0determining\u00a0their\u00a0eligibility for\u00a0elevation\u00a0as High\u00a0Court\u00a0judges. Grievance of the petitioners The Petitioners were duly selected and appointed as District Judges (Entry Level) by way\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245149,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/06\/judicial-power\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":1},"title":"Ori HC | Power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes","author":"Editor","date":"March 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: B.P. Routray J. dismissed the petition on the ground that cancellation of the tender cannot be said to have attracted the doctrine of lis pendens. The facts of the case are such that the petitioners are registered small scale industrial units who participated in the tender process\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":265406,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/13\/advocates-are-officers-of-court-and-deserve-same-respect-and-dignity-as-is-being-given-to-judicial-and-presiding-officers\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":2},"title":"Advocates are officers of Court and deserve same respect and dignity as is being given to Judicial and Presiding Officers of Courts: J&K and Ladakh HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, there may be stray incidents where the advocates have resorted to levelling allegations against the Judicial Officers in order to seek transfer of their cases from one Court to another to suit their convenience, but then this cannot\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":215262,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/01\/utt-hc-ex-parte-interim-injunction-satisfaction-for-prima-facie-case-balance-of-convenience-and-irreparable-loss-must-be-recorded-before-grant-thereof\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":3},"title":"Utt HC | Ex-parte interim injunction: Satisfaction for prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss must be recorded before grant thereof","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J. allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) while granting an ex-parte injunction in the favour of respondents and the order passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":225906,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/19\/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":4},"title":"Members of subordinate judiciary can’t claim direct recruitment to the District judge post under quota meant for practicing advocates","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 19, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held that members of the judicial service of any State cannot claim to be appointed for vacancies in the cadre of District Judge, in the quota earmarked for appointment from amongst eligible Advocates, under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/24\/ad-hoc-service-judicial-service-seniority-elevation-high-court-judge-article-217-supreme-court-andhra-pradesh-high-court-legal-updates-knowledge-research-law-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":169794,"position":5},"title":"Ad-hoc judicial service does not count as \u2018judicial service\u2019 for elevation as a High Court judge: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Some members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service had claimed that the service rendered by them as District & Sessions Fast Track judges on Ad-hoc basis was not considered for elevation to the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-527.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-527.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-527.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-527.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169794","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169794"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169794\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169794"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169794"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169794"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}