{"id":83951,"date":"2016-11-05T11:21:56","date_gmt":"2016-11-05T05:51:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=83951"},"modified":"2017-01-11T12:02:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-11T06:32:09","slug":"individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bombay High Court:<\/strong> While deciding the present petition challenging the vires of Section 16(1) and Second Proviso to Section 13 of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, the Division Bench of Manjula Chellur, C.J., and M.S. Sonak, J., dismissed the petition stating that the impugned provisions express a legislative policy and individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional. The Court further held that when it comes to determination of hours and limitation for employment, the courts cannot insist on mathematical and precise calculation covering diverse situations and possible contingencies arising due to the inherent complexities involved in the society. The Court went on to state that the impugned provisions had been enacted to benefit the motor transport workers the motor transport workers transport on most occasions the members of the public and if the motor transport workers are over-strained, there is possibility of accidents<\/p>\n

The counsel for the petitioner put forth \u00a0that the impugned provisions are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. She further contended that requiring any motor transport workers to work beyond 8 hours in any day or more than 48 hours in any week, adversely affects the right to life of such workers, constitutes bonded labour thereby violating Article 21. It was further contended that Section 16(1) of the 1961 Act which permits spread over of more than 12 hours in any day takes no cognizance whatsoever of the conditions of service in metropolitan areas where, it is practically impossible for the workers to afford any housing.<\/p>\n

Perusing the contentions, the Court observed that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 make it clear that there was need for an independent legislation applicable to motor transport workers as a whole. The Court stated that the purpose of the Second Proviso to Section 13 which provides that in case of a breakdown or dislocation of a motor transport service or interruption of traffic the employer may, subject to such conditions and limitations require or allow any such motor transport workers to work for more than 8 hours in any day or more than 48 hours in any week and the same had been enacted to make an exception or to exclude the situation, which would otherwise be covered in the main enactment. However, that does not render the proviso unconstitutional. The Court elucidated upon the principles of constitutionality and stated that a court cannot declare a provision unconstitutional only on grounds of hardship. For a law that allegedly violates Article 14 of the Constitution, the Courts must ensure that the tests of arbitrariness and unreasonableness are satisfied. The Court finally observed that on construction of the impugned provisions in its entirety, they do not violate Article 21 either. [BEST Worker\u2019s Union v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9279<\/a>, decided on 24.10.2016]<\/p>\n

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

Bombay High Court: While deciding the present petition challenging the vires of Section 16(1) and Second Proviso to Section 13 of the <\/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":[10931,10941],"class_list":["post-83951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-articles-21-and-14","tag-working-hours"],"yoast_head":"\nIndividual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional | 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\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court: While deciding the present petition challenging the vires of Section 16(1) and Second Proviso to Section 13 of the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-11-05T05:51:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-11T06:32:09+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=\"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\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/\",\"name\":\"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-11-05T05:51:56+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-11T06:32:09+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#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\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional\"}]},{\"@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":"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional | 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\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional","og_description":"Bombay High Court: While deciding the present petition challenging the vires of Section 16(1) and Second Proviso to Section 13 of the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-11-05T05:51:56+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-11T06:32:09+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":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/","name":"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg","datePublished":"2016-11-05T05:51:56+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-11T06:32:09+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#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\/2016\/11\/05\/individual-instances-of-hardship-and-inconvenience-cannot-become-a-ground-to-declare-a-provision-as-unconstitutional\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Individual instances of hardship and inconvenience cannot become a ground to declare a provision as unconstitutional"}]},{"@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":165254,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/inconvenience-caused-person-certain-individual-eventuality-cannot-reason-declare-provision-illegal\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":0},"title":"Any inconvenience caused to a person for certain individual eventuality cannot be a reason to declare a provision illegal","author":"Saba","date":"October 26, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: A writ petition was filed to examine constitutional validity of Rule 63(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (the Rules of 2017). The sub-rule aforesaid provides that an appeal shall be filed within three months of the date of communication of the order appealed against,\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":107871,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/02\/20\/transfer-cannot-be-challenged-on-the-grounds-of-personal-inconvenience\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":1},"title":"Transfer cannot be challenged on the grounds of personal inconvenience","author":"Saba","date":"February 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Single Bench of Sujoy Paul, J. has held that an employee does\u00a0not have any indefeasible right to get transferred at a nearby place, and he cannot challenge a\u00a0transfer order on the mere grounds of personal inconvenience. In the instant case, the petitioner who was employed\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":6380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/08\/11\/section-19-of-prevention-of-corruption-act-1988-constitutional\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":2},"title":"Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 constitutional","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 11, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench comprising of T.S. Thakur and A.K. Goel, dealing with a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which mandates prior sanction for prosecution in cases relating to corruption, held that requirement of sanction has salutary object of protecting an innocent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":221406,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/23\/ph-hc-a-transfer-application-cannot-be-allowed-merely-on-the-ground-of-inconvenience-of-attorney-in-attending-hearings\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":3},"title":"P&H HC | A transfer application cannot be allowed merely on the ground of inconvenience of attorney in attending hearings\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: H.S. Madaan, J. dismissed the application for the transfer of a divorce petition merely on the ground of inconvenience of the attorney in attending hearings. The applicant herein was the wife of respondent who had filed a divorce petition against her in the Court 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":213746,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/19\/mp-hc-to-waive-off-the-mandatory-6-months-period-for-reconsidering-the-decision-of-divorce-personal-inconvenience-as-a-ground-denied\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":4},"title":"MP HC | To waive off “mandatory 6 months period” for reconsidering the decision of divorce, personal inconvenience as a ground — denied","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 19, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed a revision filed in respect of waiving off of the mandatory 6 months period under Section 151 CPC. The present application was filed following the stated facts, in which it has been stated that applicant and respondent filed an\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":6705,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/07\/17\/petition-challenging-the-constitutionality-of-shariat-law-dismissed\/","url_meta":{"origin":83951,"position":5},"title":"Petition challenging the constitutionality of Shariat law, dismissed","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 17, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: On a Writ Petition filed by several petitioners to declare Shariat Law applicable in regard to inheritance of property by Muslim women as unconstitutional and void for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution, a division bench of Ashok Bhushan CJ\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Courts"","block_context":{"text":"High Courts","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/highcourts\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83951","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=83951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83951\/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=83951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}