{"id":55191,"date":"2016-07-08T14:11:53","date_gmt":"2016-07-08T08:41:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=55191"},"modified":"2016-09-13T12:10:48","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T06:40:48","slug":"consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/","title":{"rendered":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ, while deciding the question as to whether the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, held that the requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time. It was held that renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining licence. However, the Court clarified that even in the case of application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent as valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">While interpreting the Section 492 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Tribunal and the single bench of Kerala High Court had said that Under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, a consent of the owner is needed only for obtaining licence for the first time. Since the petitioner has not applied for licence for the first time the Corporation cannot impose a condition for obtaining a consent from the landlord. It was further held that The Corporation cannot insist upon such a tenant for production of a written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuing of the licence. A statutory tenant can be evicted from the leased premises only in accordance with the various provisions contained in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court, noting that since the possession of the tenant is lawful, the landlord is not entitled to withhold his consent for the conduct of the business for which the premises were given on rent, agreed with the abovementioned view and hence, set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court, thereby, restoring the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Single Bench of the High Court. [Sudhakaran v. Corp. of Trivandrum, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/LoginForNewsLink\/2016_SCC_OnLine_SC_666\">2016 SCC OnLine SC 666<\/a>, decided on 05.07.2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court: The bench of V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ, while deciding the question as to whether the consent of <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[7871,7861,7851,5363],"class_list":["post-55191","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-lease","tag-owner","tag-premises","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 | 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\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The bench of V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ, while deciding the question as to whether the consent of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.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=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\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\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"headline\":\"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":383,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Lease\",\"Owner\",\"Premises\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/\",\"name\":\"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2016\\\/07\\\/08\\\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994\"}]},{\"@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\\\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/legal_editor\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 | 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\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994","og_description":"Supreme Court: The bench of V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ, while deciding the question as to whether the consent of","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/"},"author":{"name":"Sucheta","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"headline":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994","datePublished":"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/"},"wordCount":383,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","keywords":["Lease","Owner","Premises","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/","name":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2016-07-08T08:41:53+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T06:40:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/08\/consent-of-the-owner-of-the-premises-not-necessary-for-renewal-of-tenants-valid-licence-under-the-section-4923-of-the-kerala-municipality-act-1994\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consent of the owner of the premises not necessary for renewal of tenant\u2019s valid licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55191","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55191\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}