{"id":4768,"date":"2025-02-12T21:39:29","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T16:09:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4768"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:29:30","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:59:30","slug":"kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra 1952 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4768\" class=\"elementor elementor-4768\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-205524a3 elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"205524a3\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-57d2200a\" data-id=\"57d2200a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-2c0ba2bf elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"2c0ba2bf\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-2dda16\" data-id=\"2dda16\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-26d7c360 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"26d7c360\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra 1952 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-5e05ac6a elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"5e05ac6a\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4787\" alt=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-vector-illustration-of-a-courtroom-wit_jg5_6LUgTF2mpOVxuZc23Q_3GFD-3EaQW6mJURtbFXciA-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-68eea85 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"68eea85\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra case deals with the scope and interpretation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the principle of equality before the law and principle of reasonable classification.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\" >Facts of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgement\" >Subordinate Court Judgement<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Kathi_Raning_Rawat_v_State_of_Saurashtra\" >Judgment of Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/kathi-raning-rawat-v-state-of-saurashtra-air-1952-sc-123-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The State of Saurashtra promulgated \u201cThe Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures Ordinance\u201d in 1948, which aimed to ensure public safety, maintain order and preserve peace and tranquillity in the newly integrated state of Saurashtra which witnessed rise in lawlessness and crime.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Rajpramukh promulgated Ordinance No. XII of 1948. This ordinance incorporated the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) into Saurashtra, with some modifications.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Despite the implementation of the Ordinance, criminal activities continued, particularly in the Gohilwad, Madhya Saurashtra and the border of the Sorath districts. Incidents of looting, dacoity, robbery, assault (including nose-cutting) and murder became more frequent and severe, perpetrated by organized gangs of dacoits.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In response to the escalating crime, the State of Saurashtra promulgated \u201cThe Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance of 1949\u201d, modifying the original ordinance by adding several provisions, Section 9, which empowered the government to establish Special Courts in designated areas, Section 10, which dealt with the appointment of Special Judges, and Section 11, which granted the government the authority to determine which offences or classes of offences would be tried by these Special Courts.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Subsequently, a Special Court was established by a notification. The notification outlined the court\u2019s jurisdiction, covering specific areas largely within the districts most affected by the criminal activities.\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The notification also listed the offences that would fall under the jurisdiction of this Special Court. These offences included those listed under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (as adapted to Saurashtra) and crimes under the 1948 public safety ordinance.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kathi Raning Rawat was convicted by the Special Court on charges of murder, attempted murder, and robbery under sections 302, 307, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 34.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Special Judge sentenced him to death for murder and seven years of rigorous imprisonment for each of the other charges, to be served concurrently.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the classification of offences for trial by the Special Court under Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance of 1949 violated Article 14?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the conviction of the Appellant is valid?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgement\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgement<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Kathi Raning Rawat filed an appeal against the Special Court\u2019 verdict, which was rejected by the High Court of Saurashtra.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Subsequently, he filed the appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 132(1) and 134(1)(c) to challenge his conviction and constitutionality of the Ordinance.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Kathi_Raning_Rawat_v_State_of_Saurashtra\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court&#8217;s analysis centered on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, assessing whether the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance of 1949, infringed the principle of equality. The Court, further, assessed Article 13, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, as well as Section 5 and 28 of CrPC.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judges conducted a comprehensive analysis of Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality before the law and its implications for the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance of 1949. The Court emphasised the well-established legal principle of &#8216;reasonable classification&#8217; in enacting legislation. The Court recognised the State\u2019s power to classify subjects for legislative purposes, acknowledging that such power is essential for effective governance. However, it emphasized that this power is not absolute and must conform to constitutional standards to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. The principle of reasonable classification, in such a scenario, requires adherence to two key conditions: there must be an intelligible differentia for distinguishing between those included and excluded from the classification and this distinction must have a rational nexus to the objective the legislation seeks to achieve.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In examining the Ordinance, the Court considered the specific context in which it was enacted. At the time of enactment, the State faced an unprecedented rise in serious crimes, including dacoity, murder, and robbery as highlighted by the affidavit, in certain areas, which created a pressing need to maintain public order and ensure the safety of citizens. The Court determined that the classification of offences for trial by Special Courts was guided by this objective and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The classification was based on two key factors: the type of offences and the territory where they were prevalent. The offences listed in the notification issued under the Ordinance were those that directly impacted public safety and order, such as those under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 392 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Courts were established in specific areas that had witnessed a surge in these violent crimes. Furthermore, the territorial application of the Ordinance was limited to areas experiencing a surge in such crimes.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court found this two-fold classification reasonable, as it directly addressed the pressing law and order challenges the State sought to resolve. In applying the &#8220;intelligible differentia&#8221; test, the Court acknowledged the distinct nature of the offences classified for trial by the Special Courts, particularly their direct impact on public safety and order. The geographical limitation to areas specifically plagued by this surge in violence also served as a clear and understandable basis for differentiation.\u00a0 The Court further assessed the rational nexus between the classification and the Ordinance\u2019s objective. It found that the classification was directly aligned with the goal of restoring public safety and order. The establishment of Special Courts with modified procedures was deemed a proportionate response to address the urgent law and order crisis effectively.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Saurashtra State Public Safety Measures (Third Amendment) Ordinance of 1949, concluding that it did not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.\u00a0 The Court overruled the appellant&#8217;s preliminary objection, asserting that the Ordinance adhered to the principle of reasonable classification. It reasoned that the differentiation was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but was firmly grounded in a rational basis connected to the Ordinance\u2019s purpose of safeguarding public safety and restoring order. The Court further observed that the classification of offences, tailored to address the extraordinary law and order crisis in specific regions, represented a proportionate and constitutionally valid response to the State&#8217;s pressing needs.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Read the Judgment Below<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-bb07483 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"bb07483\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Kathi-Raning-Rawat-vs-The-State-Of-Saurashtra-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra case deals with the scope and interpretation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the principle of equality before the law and principle of reasonable classification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4787,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[16,12],"class_list":["post-4768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-law","tag-article-14","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4768"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4768\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4945,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4768\/revisions\/4945"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}