{"id":182184,"date":"2018-01-18T10:49:27","date_gmt":"2018-01-18T05:19:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=182184"},"modified":"2018-01-19T13:33:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-19T08:03:27","slug":"mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:<\/strong> A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. heard a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had allowed admission of letters by the respondent as secondary evidence. The petitioner contended that there was nothing on record to show that those letters had been issued by the respondent and the respondent\u2019s contention that they were in the possession of the petitioner was also not true. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the application seeking request to produce letters in the form of secondary evidence be rejected.<\/p>\n

The Court upheld the decision of the trial court allowing the respondent to produce secondary evidence stating that the necessary foundation for production of the secondary evidence had been established but merely because the respondent was allowed to lead secondary evidence does not imply that they will be exhibited or admitted in evidence.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the issue as to admitting them in evidence had been left open by the trial court and the High Court to be dealt with at an appropriate stage and the petition was dismissed. [Rajendra Mahadev Todkar v. M\/s Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Company Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 15<\/a>, order dated 05-01-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. heard a petition challenging the order of the trial <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":74381,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3120],"class_list":["post-182184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-secondary_evidence"],"yoast_head":"\nMere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court | 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\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. heard a petition challenging the order of the trial\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-01-18T05:19:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-19T08:03:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\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=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/\",\"name\":\"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-01-18T05:19:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-19T08:03:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court\"}]},{\"@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":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court | 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\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court","og_description":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. heard a petition challenging the order of the trial","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-01-18T05:19:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-19T08:03:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/","name":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2018-01-18T05:19:27+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-19T08:03:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","width":1331,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/18\/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court"}]},{"@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":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":361734,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/madras-hc-xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-under-s-65-evidence-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":0},"title":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified: Madras High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIf the original document is lost or destroyed, detained by the opponent, or third person, who does not produce it before the Court or physically irrecoverable, the secondary evidence is admissible\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Xerox-copy-of-lost-cheque-admissible-as-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358386,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/30\/bom-hc-documents-unavailability-no-ground-for-secondary-evidence\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":1},"title":"Non-traceability or unavailability of documents cannot constitute a foundation to lead secondary evidence: Bombay High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner\u2019s submission that the documents are not immediately available\/traceable is not supported by any affidavit and the application appears to have been signed only by the counsel. Thus, petitioner\u2019s contention about absence of original documents only based on bare statement in an application cannot be straightway accepted.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Documents unavailability no ground for secondary evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Documents-unavailability-no-ground-for-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Documents-unavailability-no-ground-for-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Documents-unavailability-no-ground-for-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Documents-unavailability-no-ground-for-secondary-evidence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308464,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/05\/section35-stamp-act-insufficiently-stamped-documents-cannot-prohibited-admission-not-chargeable-with-stamp-duty-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":2},"title":"[Section 35 Stamp Act] Insufficiently stamped documents cannot be prohibited from admission in evidence, if not chargeable with stamp duty: Supreme Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe object of the Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such stamp duty is payable. Section 35 is a provision to cater for the instruments not being properly stamped and, as such, not being admissible in evidence\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 35 Stamp Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Section-35-Stamp-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336218,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/29\/class-10-marksheet-a-public-document-under-section-35-of-evidence-act-more-credible-than-school-admission-forms-rajasthan-high-court-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":3},"title":"Class 10 marksheet, being a public document under Section 35 of Evidence Act, more credible than school admission forms: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"November 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt was not within the Election Tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction to overlook the mark-sheets issued by a competent officer of the Board of Secondary Education pertaining to the date of birth of petitioner\u2019s two children.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rajasthan High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Rajasthan-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":178474,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":4},"title":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC","author":"Saba","date":"December 27, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the decision of the trial court in allowing the application preferred by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The facts of the case are that the petitioner\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":164604,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/21\/trial-court-didnt-take-sufficient-care-branding-petitioner-stigma-living-adultery-order-set-aside\/","url_meta":{"origin":182184,"position":5},"title":"Trial court didn\u2019t take sufficient care before branding petitioner with \u201cstigma of living in adultery\u201d, order set aside","author":"Saba","date":"October 21, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. quashed and set aside an order of the trial Court that had cancelled the maintenance awarded to the petitioner, stating that the trial court had not taken \u201csufficient care before branding the petitioner with the stigma living\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\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182184","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=182184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182184\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/74381"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}