Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

C. ELUMALAI versus STATE OE TAMIL NADU

Decided
26 October 1984
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1985] 1 S.C.R. 1057 · 1984 INSC 200
Also cited as
  • (1984) 4 SCC 539 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

VENKATARAMIAH, J. We have heard Shri Navin Malhotra, amlcus curiae and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Tamil Nadu. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Va//abhapuram Ravi(1> (I) [1984] 2 SCALE 38~. toss SUPRBMB COURT REPOllTS (1985] 1 s.c.ll. (Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1984) in which judgment was delivered on September 14, 1984 this Court has held that adolescent offenders kept in a Borstal School by virtue of orders made by the State Government under section 10-A of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925 cannot be detained in the Borstal School or in any other place after they have attained 23 years of age and that they should be released. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 are identical with the provisions of the Andhra Borstal Schools Act, 1925. In the judgment referred to above the decision of the Madras High Court in In re. Ganapati r'l which had taken the view that after section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 came into force a person who was convicted of an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code but sentenced to imprisonment for life and who was by virtue of an order passed under section 10-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act, 1925 detained in a Borstal School could not be released before he completed 14 years of detention bas also been overruled. In the circumstances it has to be held that the State Government of Tamil Nadu cannot keep any adolescent offender who is convicted of a capital offence but sentenced to imprisonment of life in respect of whom an order is made under section IO-A of the Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act in a Borstal School or in any other kind of detention after be bas attained 23 years of age. We, therefore, direct the · Government of the State of Tamil Nadu to release all such inmates of the Borstal Schools in Tamil Nadu who have attained 23 years of age forthwith.

pp. 1057–1058, margin G

If the petitioner C. Elumalai satisfies the above condition he is also entitled to be released and if be is not in detention be shall not be taken back into custody. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

p. 1058, margin E

Petition allowed. N.V.K.

p. 1058, margin F

(I) 1983 Criminal Law Journal 509.

p. 1058, margin F