{"id":220858,"date":"2019-10-15T09:30:53","date_gmt":"2019-10-15T04:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=220858"},"modified":"2019-10-18T10:03:05","modified_gmt":"2019-10-18T04:33:05","slug":"del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as “admission” to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. allowed a revision petition filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence punishable under Section 354-A IPC\u00a0(sexual harassment).<\/em><\/p>\n

On the day of the incident, the petitioner was acting as an invigilator inside the examination hall where the complainant was writing her History subject examination paper. It was alleged that the petitioner made unwelcome physical contact with the complainant involving explicit sexual overtures against her. Further, he met the complainant nearby the bus stand and uttered certain words towards her intending to insult her modesty and intrude upon her privacy. The trial court found the allegations proved and convicted the petitioner as aforesaid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.<\/p>\n

At the outset, the High Court noted that an accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but in the instant case, the Court was of the opinion that the complainant’s testimony was not such as to inspire confidence. It found many discrepancies and improvements in her statements as was evident from the record of the case.<\/p>\n

Perusing the impugned order, it was noted,\u00a0inter alia,\u00a0<\/em>that the trial court, as well as the Appellate Court, relied upon the suggestion given on behalf of the petitioner to the complaint that she had already obtained the phone number of the petitioner after leaving the examination hall and that is how she knew the same. The Appellate Court observed that the suggestion essentially goes to show that the petitioner himself had admitted the possession of his phone number with the complainant. However, in High Court’s opinion, the question of whether a suggestion given by the counsel on behalf of the accused can be considered as admission and bind the accused under Section 18 of Evidence Act is to be answered in negative. Referring to earlier decisions, according to the Court, the plea or defence put forward by the lawyer of the accused cannot bind him. The lawyer has no implied authority to admit the guilt or facts incriminating the accused.<\/p>\n

In light of the inconsistencies and the improvements made by the complainant during her deposition and in absence of any corroborating evidence to support her statement, the Court was of the opinion that the testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence. It was held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner, the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and the Appellate Court was manifestly illegal and perverse. Resultantly, the revision petition was allowed. The petitioner’s conviction was set aside. [Pawan Kumar v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10452<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-10-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. allowed a revision petition filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the petitioner was <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"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":[2676,37914,31581,2850],"class_list":["post-220858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Admission","tag-section-18-evidence-act","tag-section-354-a-ipc","tag-sexual_harassment"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as "admission" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act | 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\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as "admission" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. allowed a revision petition filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the petitioner was\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/\" \/>\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=\"2019-10-15T04:00:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-10-18T04:33:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 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\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as \\\"admission\\\" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2019-10-15T04:00:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-10-18T04:33:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as “admission” to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act\"}]},{\"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as \"admission\" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act | 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\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as \"admission\" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. allowed a revision petition filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the petitioner was","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-10-15T04:00:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-10-18T04:33:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/","name":"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as \"admission\" to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2019-10-15T04:00:53+00:00","dateModified":"2019-10-18T04:33:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/15\/del-hc-suggestion-given-by-counsel-on-behalf-of-accused-cannot-be-considered-as-admission-to-bind-him-under-s-18-of-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Suggestion given by counsel on behalf of accused cannot be considered as “admission” to bind him under S. 18 of Evidence Act"}]},{"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":258516,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/15\/madam-yadi-aap-chutti-chahti-hain-toh-mujhse-akele-mein-aakar-milein-chh-hc-held-it-not-to-be-a-sexually-coloured-remark-offence-under-ipc-and-sc-st-act-not-made-out\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Madam if you want leave, come and meet me alone’; Chh HC held it not to be a sexually coloured remark; Offence under IPC and SC ST Act not made out","author":"Editor","date":"December 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner by Respondent 4 at Women Police Station, Bilaspur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 354(A) IPC and Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts\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":287180,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/karnataka-high-court-expresses-disbelief-probability-sexual-harassment-in-open-places-malls-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":1},"title":"Karnataka High Court finds sexual harassment in open places like malls \u2018highly improbable\u2019; quashes charges","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 18, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Karnataka High Court while expressing its shock over unlikeliness of sexual abuse in open places, quashed the charges of sexual harassment and fraud against the petitioner","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242338,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/16\/cal-hc-can-a-complaint-under-posh-act-be-filed-against-person-of-same-gender-read-hcs-full-analysis\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":2},"title":"Cal HC | Can a complaint under POSH Act be filed against person of same gender? Read HC’s full analysis","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\"[Sexual harassment] can be perpetrated by the members of any gender, even inter se.\" Calcutta High Court: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. held that a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [\"POSH Act\"], is maintainable even against \"a person\" belonging to the same\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\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":355423,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/cal-hc-mere-allegations-of-workplace-harassment-not-offence-under-section-509-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court: Vague allegations of workplace harassment by merely using words \u201charassed\u201d or \u201cabused\u201d insufficient to constitute offence under Section 509 IPC","author":"Editor","date":"August 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMere using the words \u201charassed\u201d or \u201cabused\u201d, in the overall conspectus of the case, does not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge which can lead to the conclusion that any alleged act of the petitioner constitutes an insult to the complainant\u2019s modesty.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Mere allegations of workplace harassment not offence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Mere-allegations-of-workplace-harassment-not-offence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Mere-allegations-of-workplace-harassment-not-offence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Mere-allegations-of-workplace-harassment-not-offence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Mere-allegations-of-workplace-harassment-not-offence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222686,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/29\/ph-hc-80-year-old-sexual-offence-accused-granted-bail-as-complainants-inability-to-produce-medical-report-creates-serious-doubt-about-her-veracity\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":4},"title":"P&H HC | 80-year-old sexual offence accused granted bail as complainant\u2019s inability to produce medical report creates \u201cserious doubt about her veracity\u201d","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Hari Pal Verma, J. allowed the petition filed by the petitioner by granting him bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 CrPC. An FIR dated 11-05-2019 was lodged against the petitioner under Section 354 IPC as well as Section 8 of the Protection of\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":278063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/25\/delhi-high-court-statement-made-under-sec-164-crpc-disclosing-commission-of-rape-is-sufficient-to-frame-charges-under-sec-376-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":220858,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court | Statement made under Sec 164 CrPC disclosing commission of rape is sufficient to frame charges under Sec 376 IPC","author":"Editor","date":"November 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a case where revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Trial Court by which accused persons were discharged under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. held that an accused should not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Delhi-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220858","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=220858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}