{"id":6350,"date":"2014-12-17T17:12:00","date_gmt":"2014-12-17T17:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6350"},"modified":"2015-10-14T17:24:15","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T11:54:15","slug":"constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court<\/b>: In the case where the constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC that deals with examination of person accused of rape by medical petitioner came up for question, the Bench  comprising of A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J  held that the mere fact that the section may be misused by a Police Officer, is not a reflection of the vires of the section. The mere possibility of abuse of a provision which is otherwise intra vires is not sufficient to declare such provision unconstitutional.  The question arose in the following circumstances: the petitioner in this case had been registered for offences under Sections 354-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; however, he had been released on interim bail. The petitioner had been subjected to such examination by medical practitioner. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

The petitioner  who was represented by Senior Advocates, K.G. Raghavan and Ashok Haranahalli, contended that,  firstly, <\/i>the Section conferred unfettered powers to a police officer, allowing such officer to use force against an arrested person. This was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly the right of privacy and dignity. Secondly,<\/i> extraction of bodily fluids by physical force amounted to \u2018compulsive testimony\u2019 prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Thirdly, <\/i>the Section vests unreasonably excessive power in a Police Officer in deciding the choice of medical test, that too, without intimating the accused in-advance, with regard to the nature of test\/s, to which he would be subjected to; hence, the provision being arbitrary, would run afoul of Article 14 of the Constitution. <\/o:p><\/i><\/p>\n

The counsels for the State, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General and Mr. Krishna S. Dixit, Assistant Solicitor General of India, on the other hand argued on the grounds of the presumption of constitutionality, the doctrine of separation of powers, and that the provision was in accordance with international standards.<\/o:p><\/p>\n

 The Court, considering the contentions of both sides, up held the constitutionality of the said provision and said that that the police\u2019s power to not inform the accused of the nature of the medical examination to be conducted was necessary, as it would alert the accused and might hamper the collection of evidence if the accused was aware of the same. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya<\/i> v State of Karnataka<\/i>, <\/font>2014 SCC OnLine Kar 5639<\/a><\/span>,<\/span><\/font> decided on the 03.12. 2014<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court: In the case where the constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC that deals with examination of person accused of rape <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-highcourts"],"yoast_head":"\nConstitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld | 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\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: In the case where the constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC that deals with examination of person accused of rape\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/\" \/>\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=\"2014-12-17T17:12:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-14T11:54:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.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\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/\",\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-12-17T17:12:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-14T11:54:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld | 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\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: In the case where the constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC that deals with examination of person accused of rape","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2014-12-17T17:12:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-14T11:54:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.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":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/","name":"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2014-12-17T17:12:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-14T11:54:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/12\/17\/constitutionality-of-section-53-a-crpc-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Constitutionality of Section 53-A CrPC upheld"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":209162,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/01\/bom-hc-issues-of-constitutionality-of-a-statute-not-be-decided-for-mere-academic-purpose\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Issues of constitutionality of a statute not to be decided for mere academic purpose","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court at Goa:\u00a0The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. dismissed a set of petitions holding that the present was not an appropriate case to entertain a constitutional challenge to Section 33(3) of Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968. Vires of Section 33(3) were challenged in\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":277634,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/17\/gauhati-hc-refuses-to-consider-a-scientific-minded-advocates-petition-challenging-constitutionality-of-administering-oath-in-the-name-of-god\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":1},"title":"Gauhati HC refuses to consider a \u2018scientific-minded\u2019 advocate’s petition challenging constitutionality of administering oath in the name of God","author":"Editor","date":"November 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Gauhati High Court: While deciding this interesting writ petition praying for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing to set aside Section 6 Form 1 of the Oath Act, 1969 and Rule 30 Chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Rule 2015 and declare the provisions as\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\/2022\/07\/gauhati_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/gauhati_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/gauhati_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/gauhati_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/gauhati_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":78681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/17\/national-green-tribunal-does-not-posses-the-power-to-adjudicate-upon-the-vires-or-validity-of-any-statuary-enactment\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":2},"title":"National Green Tribunal does not posses the power to adjudicate upon the vires or validity of any statutory enactment","author":"Saba","date":"October 17, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Bombay: While examining the scope of jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal, the Division Bench comprising of B.P. Dharmadhikari and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ., held that the National Green Tribunal\u00a0 has the power to adjudicate only on civil matters wherein substantial question relating to environment is involved and\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":[]},{"id":27441,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/11\/26\/validity-of-s-7-a-of-the-hindu-marriage-act-1955-upheld\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":3},"title":"Validity of S. 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, upheld","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 26, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: While dismissing the petition challenging the validity of Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Division Bench of S.K. Kaul, C.J. and T.S. Sivagananam, J. relying on the decision of S.Nagalingam v. Sivagami, (2001) 7 SCC 487, upheld the validity of Section 7-A [as inserted\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":201155,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/01\/to-declare-section-371bii-of-ndps-act-ultra-vires-constitution-not-in-scope-of-petition-under-section-439-crpc-bail-granted-under-the-same\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":4},"title":"To declare Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act ultra vires constitution not in scope of petition under Section 439 CrPC; bail granted under the same","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajbir Sehrawat, J., dealt with an application under Section 439 of CrPC. The accused was alleged with carrying psychotropic substance with him and FIR was registered against him under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985. After being examined by\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":196906,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/13\/section-311-crpc-empowers-court-to-protect-a-petitioner-against-error-of-improper-examination-in-chief-by-his-counsel\/","url_meta":{"origin":6350,"position":5},"title":"Section 311 CrPC empowers Court to protect a petitioner against error of improper examination-in-chief by his counsel","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 13, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Manipur High Court: A criminal petition seeking to allow the petitioner to recall himself as defence witness for re-examination, was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Ramalingam Sudhakar, J. The petitioner, a rifleman in Indian Reserve Battalion, was accused of a murder. During the trial, the petitioner was\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\/manipurHC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/manipurHC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/manipurHC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/manipurHC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/manipurHC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6350","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=6350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6350\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}