{"id":120366,"date":"2010-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-17T03:51:21","modified_gmt":"2016-07-16T22:21:21","slug":"mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n              Appeal No. CIC\/SS\/A\/2009\/000206 dated 30-12-2009\n                Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri Mukesh Saini\nRespondent:          National Security Council Secretariat\n                      Decision announced: 13.7.2010\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
       By an application of 12-6-2008 Shri Mukesh Saini of Central Jail, Tihar,
\nNew Delhi applied to the CPIO, National Security Council Secretariat seeking
\nthe following information:\n<\/p>\n
       “(A)   Date of receipt of the Special Cell letters No.
\n              2871&2872\/ACP\/NDR both dated 30.6.2006 and certified
\n              copy of the record of such receipt by NSCS.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(B)           From the file on which opinion was formed, the dates of
\nFIRST signatory and LAST signatory prior to arriving at final solution.
\n(C)           As NSCS letters nos. 1206 and 1207\/Dir. (VM)\/2006 are
\nUNDATED the dates on which these letters were sent to the Police and
\nhow and certified copy of the record of despatch.
\n(D)           As I have reasons to doubt the truthfulness of reply and
\nalso as there are more than 45 documents where the petitioner has
\nproduced false, half truth or forged documents in Court, please provide
\nfollowing information. It must be noted that I am not interested in the
\ncontained of the following letters:-\n<\/p>\n
                      (i)   Date and addresses of letter no. 1205\/Dir.
\n                      (VM)\/2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (ii)  Date and address of letter no. 1208\/Dir.
\n                      (VM)\/2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6.      The present position of the case in the court is that
\n              ‘framing of charges’ have begun, but presently stayed by
\n              an order of Hon’ble Supreme Court hence please do not
\n              misuse section 8\/ (1) (h) of RTI Act to block the
\n              information as investigation was completed and
\n              prosecution had already stated what they wanted to
\n              stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.      The information sought in para 5 above has by no stretch
\n              of imagination can directly, indirectly or remotely impacts
\n              national security. That is why in para 5 (d) I am not even
\n              interested in the subject matter of the concerned letters.
\n              This is only to verify the facts that information provided is
\n              truthful. Hence, please do not misuse section 8 (a) to
\n              wrongly block the information. And if such an action is
\n              taken to deny me the information, I shall presume that the<\/p>\n
                                        1<\/span>
\n                intend is malicious, and may seek necessary action under
\n               RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.        It must be noted that these two documents are the only
\n               evidence against me and are the sole cause of
\n               ascertainment of my personal liberty. The section 7 (1) of
\n               RTI Act is specific about it to provide information within
\n               48 hours in such a situation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      To this Shri Mukesh Saini received a response dated 18-7-08 from
\nCPIO, Shri G. Rajiv, Under Secretary National Security Council Secretariat
\nanswering his questions point-wise as below:\n<\/p>\n
      S. No.      Information requested for             Reply of NSCS\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a)         Date of receipt of the Special        There are no entries
\n                  Cell          letters      No.        in the NSCS record
\n                  2871&2872\/ACP\/NDR         both        regarding receipt of
\n                  dated 30.6.2006 and certified         Special Cell letters
\n                  copy of the record of such            No.       2871         &
\n                  receipt by NSCS.                      2872\/ACP\/NDR
\n                                                        dated 30.6.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)         From the file on which opinion Reply to this query
\n                  was formed, the dates of FIRST will be provided to
\n                  signatory and LAST signatory you shortly.
\n                  prior to arriving at final solution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c )        As NSCS letters nos. 1206 and These letters were
\n                  1207\/Dir.       (VM)\/2006         are sent to the Police on
\n                  UNDATED the dates on which 30.6.2006 and they
\n                  these letters were sent to the were                  received
\n                  Police and how and certified personally by Shri
\n                  copy of the record of despatch.       Sajjan      Singh     of
\n                                                        Special Cell, Delhi
\n                                                        Police on 30.6.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                        A certified copy of the
\n                                                        relevant entries in the
\n                                                        Diary Register of Dir
\n                                                        (VKM) is enclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)         Please        provide       following As per the records in
\n                  information: – (i) Date and NSCS no such letter
\n                  Addressee (s) of letter No. has been issued.
\n                  1205\/Dir\/ (VM)\/2006.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (ii) Date and addressee(s) of This               letter     is
\n                  letter no. 1208\/Dir (VM)\/2006.        addressed to Shri
\n                                                        Sajjan     Singh     IO,
\n                                                        Delhi Police, Special
\n                                                        Cell      and      was
\n                                                        received personally
\n                                                        by him on 30.6.2006<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span>
\n        Shri Mukesh Saini then moved an appeal dated 12-8-08 upon which
\nShri G. Rajiv conveyed the decision of the 1st Appellate Authority on 24-9-08
\nas below:\n<\/p>\n
        “NSCS do not possess any file or document, on which opinion
\n       was formed on the Delhi Police, Special Cell letter Nos. 2871 &
\n       2872\/ACP\/NDR both dated 30.6.2006 and therefore, no dates of
\n       first signatory and last signatory prior to arriving at final solution
\n       is available with NSCS. The replies of NSCS to the two Delhi
\n       Police letters dated 30.6.2006 were personally collected by the
\n       IO of Delhi Police Special Cell on 30.6.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The delay on the part of CPIO in giving the reply to this
\n       particular query occurred as he had to go through many records
\n       in NSCS and had to consult other officers in NSCS.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Subsequently, on an application of 9-1-09 u\/s 311 Cr. P.C. of the
\naccused Shri Mukesh Saini Addl. Session Judge, Delhi Shri Inderjit Singh has
\npassed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
         “The contentions being raised by both the sides are considered.
\n        The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. is kept pending for
\n        the following reasons:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(a)     The applicant requests to summon the concerned officers of
\nNSCS to confirm whether the letters undated,, were containing
\ndecision of NSCS or it was a personal view of Shri Vinod Kumar Mal;\n<\/p>\n
(b)      There is also request to call upon the prosecution to accept RTI
\nletters as genuine under section 294 Cr.P.C., whereas, section 294
\nCr.P.C. is with regard to the admission nor denial of the documents,
\nbeing carried at the juncture of trial or stage at the juncture of framing
\nof charge;\n<\/p>\n
(c)     Ld. Predecessor of this Court has already been held that the
\ncontentions on the point of charge will be considered together, as
\nindividual case of the accused cannot be segregated from the other
\ntwo accused persons;\n<\/p>\n
(d)     The accused Ujjawal Das Gupta’a application for supply of
\ncertain documents were dismissed on 19.4.2008, however, his Criminal
\nMC No. 1255\/08 was allowed for permission to have certain documents
\nby Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by order dated 25.4.2008, however, the
\norder has been stayed in SLP No. 3718\/2008, and\n<\/p>\n
(e)     The contents of the application are associated with the plea of
\ndischarge under section 227 (chapter XXVIII) of Cr.P.C. along with the
\nprovisions of section 294 Cr.P.C. with regard to no formal proof of
\ncertain documents during the evidence in inquiries and trial.\n<\/p>\n
       Since the application has been kept pending, it will be
\n       considered at the appropriate stage. List on 2.7.2009. Copy of
\n       this order be given free of cost. Written notice is sent to Special<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span>
\n        PP for State as well as to investigating officer to produce
\n       laptop\/Jamatalashi on the next date positively and without fail.’<\/p>\n
       Subsequently, Shri Mukesh Saini has moved a complaint before this
\nCommission with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
        “In view of the aforesaid and as directed by the Hon’ble CIC on
\n       17.6.2006, it is most humbly prayed that the Chief Information
\n       Commissioner, as the custodian of the RTI Act, may be pleased
\n       to raise the matter with the appropriate authorities to get ‘class
\n       order’ issued to all courts of the country to accept RTI replies u\/s
\n       79 of the Indian evidence Act 1872, without calling the
\n       concerned Public Information Officers in the witness box to
\n       prove the RTI replies. This will be great help to the complainant,
\n       the public Information Officers and millions of the litigants, who
\n       can get speedy justice with the help of RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In this, he has submitted the following which, in his view, is the present
\nlegal position:\n<\/p>\n
       “2.    The section 79 of EA states,\n<\/p>\n
79.           Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies:-\n<\/p>\n
              The Court shall presume to be genuine every document
\n              purporting to be a certificate, certified copy, or other
\n              document, which is by law declared to be admissible as
\n              evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be
\n              duly certified by any officer of the Central Government or
\n              of a State Government, or by any officer in the State of
\n              Jammu and Kashmir who is duly authorized thereto by
\n              the Central Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Provided that such document is substantially in the term
\n              and purports to be executed in the manner directed by
\n              law in that behalf.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom
\n              any such document purports to be signed or certified
\n              held, when he signed it, the official character which he
\n              claims in such paper.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.            In that RTI Act meets all the conditions as defined in
\nsection 79 of EA, which are:\n<\/p>\n
                      (a)     The document (Public) purportedly can be a
\n                      certificate, certified copy or other document;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (b)      Which is by law (RTI Act) declared to be
\n                      admissible as evidence of any particular fact
\n                      (records of public authorities);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (c)     duly certified by an officer of an appropriate
\n                      government who is duly so authorised
\n                      (CPIO\/SPIO\/PIO);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (d)     Such documents (RTI replies) should be
\n                      substantially in the term and purports to be
\n                      executed as directed by law (RTI Act).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
 4.            And, if these conditions are met the court shall presume
\nthat such documents as genuine (without calling such public officer as
\nwitness).\n<\/p>\n
5.            The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a law, which has
\nmade respective Public Information Officer a duly authorised officer of
\nthe Central\/ State Government, who after verifying the fact is
\nauthorised to state such facts in RTI replies as a signed document or
\ncertified copy. Such a document being in compliance with the RTI Act
\ncan be said to be purportedly executed in accordance with RTI Act,
\ntherefore, should be presume to be genuine.\n<\/p>\n
6.            Therefore, the courts must presume genuineness of RTI
\nreplies at face value and unless rebutted by the opposing party, such
\nRTI replies may be read as evidence without calling the concerned
\nPublic Information Officer to the court.”\n<\/p>\n
         Nevertheless, Shri Mukesh Saini has gone on to cite specific incidents
\nof courts not accepting RTI replies u\/s 79 of the Evidence Act. This complaint
\nwas registered as an appeal under File No. CIC\/SS\/A\/2009\/000206 of this
\nCommission dated 30-12-2009. However, on examination it was found that
\nthis is not a police matter. The complainant has inter alia requested the
\nCommission to recommend\/ direct the Govt. so that documents received
\nunder RTI suo-moto become evidence before the Court of law. Although the
\ncase was scheduled for hearing with NSCS as respondent, this is technically
\nneither an appeal nor a complaint, only a request for clarification regarding the
\nlegal position on replies received by parties under the RTI Act. Notice of
\nhearing issued for 18.6.2010 was therefore withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
         The legal position in this matter is clear. There are a number of cases
\ndecided by the Supreme Court and High Courts wherein Courts have relied
\nupon documents procured from Public Authorities in deciding the cases. The
\nrule which gets deduced from the practice is “The documents which are
\nadmissible and relevant is given due cognizance by the competent courts and
\ncourts here never raised this question that documents procured from a public
\nauthority through RTI application is not admissible.” Under the above
\ncircumstances both the appeal and the complaint in this case are allowed to
\nabate.\n<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
        The clarification above is conveyed to all parties for information. Notice
\nof this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n13-7-2010<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n13-7-2010<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/SS\/A\/2009\/000206 dated 30-12-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri Mukesh Saini Respondent: National Security Council Secretariat Decision announced: 13.7.2010 FACTS By an application of 12-6-2008 Shri Mukesh Saini of Central Jail, Tihar, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-120366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/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.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1883,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","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.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010"},"wordCount":1883,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010","name":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-16T22:21:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-mukesh-saini-vs-ministry-of-home-affairs-on-13-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Mukesh Saini vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 13 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}