{"id":136400,"date":"2010-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-23T07:27:19","modified_gmt":"2017-03-23T01:57:19","slug":"mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000355 dated 25.3.2009\n                  Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -       Shri Anurag Goel\nRespondent          -   Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)\n                           Decision announced: 3.6.2010\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         By an application of 14.10.08 Shri Anurag Goel of Pashchim Vihar, New
\nDelhi applied to the CPIO, UPSC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.  When did UPSC take the decision of notification of LDCE
\n              2006? Please provide copy of noting portion of the file
\n              whereby this decision was taken by the Commission (As per
\n              CIC order in appeal No. CIC\/OK\/A\/2006\/00154 dated 2.1.07)
\n              file noting can be provided to the applicant u\/s 2(f) and u\/s
\n              2(i)(a) of RTI Act.)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.            When did UPSC intimate the decision of notification of LDCE
\n2006 to DOPT? Please provide a copy of letter sent by UPSC to DOPT
\nintimating the decision of notification of LDCE 2006.\n<\/p>\n
3.            As per the writ of mandamus issued by High Court of Delhi
\nin W.P.(C) No. 12722\/2005, LDCE 2006 was to be notified by July 2007
\nas LDCE 2005 was held in December 2006. Why did UPSC not take the
\ndecision of notification of LDCE 2006 in July 2007?\n<\/p>\n
4.            Was there any stay on the notification of SOs LDCE 2006
\nbecause of Delhi High Court’s orders dated 9.7.07, 6.11.07 or 27.3.08 in
\nW. P. (C) 4876\/2007?\n<\/p>\n
5.            If there was no stay on SOs LDCE 2006, why did the
\nCommission take so much time in taking the decision of notification of
\nexamination?\n<\/p>\n
6.            UPSC in a letter No. 9\/2\/2006 EIB dated 13.9.07 informed
\nDOPT of its decision not to notify LDCE 2006 till the final outcome of
\nsubjudice case in High Court of Delhi on the plea that notifying LDCE
\n2006 making it subject to decision of Delhi High Court will lead to the
\nsituation that existed a few years back where the Commission had to
\nrelease supplementary lists of repeat candidates. In an earlier case in
\nW.P.(C) 12722\/2005 which was concerned with repeat candidates in
\nLDCE 2001 and 2002, Delhi High Court made the observation that the 14
\ncandidates selected in LDCE 2001 ought not to have figured in LDCE
\n2002 list since LDCE 2001 results were already known at the time of
\ndeclaration of LDCE 2002 results. Hon’ble Court also observed that the
\ncase under consideration did not present an issue of supplementary list<\/p>\n
                                           1<\/span>
\n and was merely a matter of adjustment of lists prepared subsequent to
\nresults.\n<\/p>\n
      Did UPSC before taking the decision, as mentioned in above
\n      referred letter consider the possibility of notifying LDCE 2006
\n      subject in a way ensuring that no successful candidate in LDCE
\n      2005 was repeated in results of LDCE 2006 thereby eliminating the
\n      possibility of supplementary list? Please provide copy of noting
\n      portion of the file whereby this decision of not notifying LDCE 2006
\n      was taken.”\n<\/p>\n
To this Shri Goel received a response pointwise dated 11.11.08, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “i)      It is informed that the Commission had directed to notify the
\n               SO Grade LDCE 2006 on 23.6.08. As desired, a copy of the
\n               relevant noting portion (F. No. 9\/2\/2006-EIB pages 6-
\n               9\/notes) is enclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       ii)     It is informed that the Commission had intimated its decision
\n               to DOPT on 26.6.08. A copy of letter No. F.9\/2\/2006-EIB
\n               dated 26.6.2008 addressed to DOPT and copy endorsed to
\n               other participating Ministries \/ Department is enclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
iii)           Since the matter regarding the very rules of the Examination
\nis subjudice, the Commission could not unilaterally notify SO Grade LDCE
\n2006 during July 2007.\n<\/p>\n
iv)            No, there was apparently no legal stay on the notification of
\nSOLDCE, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
v)             As mentioned against reply to Para 3, the Commission still
\ncould not decide unilaterally to notify SOs Grade Examination, 2006
\nwithout the consent of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
vi)            No such letter was issued on 13.9.07 by the Commission.
\nHowever, a letter No. F.9\/2\/2006-EIB was written on 14.9.07 to DOPT
\nconveying the decision of he Commission to withhold the declaration of
\nresult of SOs Grade 2006 and for also withholding the notification of SO
\nGrade LDCE 2006 due to various reasons in the light of the litigation
\npending in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. However, the above decision
\nwas further reviewed and the Commission decided to declare the result of
\nSO LDCE 2005 and to notify SO LDCE 2006. However, the notification of
\nSOLDCE 2006 could not be proceed further in view of no agreement
\nreached between the Commission and the Government in this regard. As
\ndesired the copy of the letter No. F.9\/2\/2006-EIB dated 14.9.2007
\naddressed to DOPT is enclosed.”\n<\/p>\n
      However, aggrieved by part of the answer Shri Anurag Goel moved an
\nappeal on 5.12.08 before Shri K. S. Bariar, Jt. Secretary, pleading as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
        “I had requested vide Q. No. 6 to provide copy of noting portion of
\n       the file where UPSC took the decision of not notifying LDCE 2006
\n       as intimated to DOPT vide letter No. 9\/2\/2006-E.I (B) dated
\n       14.9.07. Instead of copy of noting portion, UPSC has provided a
\n       copy of the said letter. Kindly provide me the copy of relevant file
\n       noting portion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Upon this, with his order of 19.1.09 JS Shri Bariar allowed the appeal and
\nissued the following instructions:\n<\/p>\n
       “I, therefore, direct the CPIO, UPSC to either supply the above
\n       requested document to the appellant or the reason for not
\n       supplying the same to him within 15 days of issue of this order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In compliance CPIO Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Dy. Secretary informed Shri
\nAnurag Goel as below, through a letter of 4.12.09:\n<\/p>\n
       “It is informed that as per Para 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, the
\n       copy of noting portion of the file where UPSC took the decision of
\n       not notifying LDCE 2006 cannot be provided to you since it will not
\n       serve a larger public interest. Moreover, SOs grade LDCE 2006
\n       could not be notified since the matter was subjudice and the Court
\n       frowns upon any thing done outside the court proceedings in a
\n       subjudice matter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This has brought Shri Anurag Goel before us in second appeal, praying as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “It is requested to direct CPIO to provide the relevant file
\n       noting portion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The appeal was heard on 3.6.2010. The following are present:
\n       Appellant
\n             Shri Anurag Goel
\n       Respondent
\n             Shri Rameshwar Dayal, DS \/ CPIO
\n             Shri D. R. Madan, Asstt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Shri Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
\n             Shri Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Advocate<\/p>\n
       Learned Counsel for respondents Shri Naresh Kaushik submitted that the
\nCourt has taken a decision with regard to the matter, which was subjudice, on the<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n notification of SOs Gr. LDCE 2006. The purpose of appellant, Shri Anurag Goel
\nhimself in service in the UPSC has, therefore, been served.                         CPIO Shri
\nRameshwar Dayal also agrees that the disclosure of file noting after taking into
\naccount sec. 8(1)(e) was acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
                                    DECISION NOTICE
\n       The only issue before us now is the question of the disclosure of “relevant<\/p>\n
file noting”. In\u00a0his\u00a0judgment\u00a0in\u00a0WP(C)\u00a0228\/2009,\u00a0CPO\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0of\u00a0India\u00a0<\/p>\n
vs.\u00a0SC\u00a0Agrawal\u00a0&\u00a0Anr.\u00a0 \u00a0Hon’ble\u00a0Ravindra\u00a0Bhat\u00a0J\u00a0has\u00a0discussed\u00a0the\u00a0concept\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
fiduciary\u00a0relationship\u00a0in\u00a0some\u00a0detail.\u00a0The\u00a0HC\u00a0ruling\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0case\u00a0is\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
       54.\u00a0The\u00a0petitioners\u00a0argue\u00a0that\u00a0assuming\u00a0that\u00a0asset\u00a0declarations,\u00a0in\u00a0
\n       terms\u00a0 of\u00a0the\u00a01997\u00a0constitute\u00a0“information”\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0Act,\u00a0yet\u00a0they\u00a0
\n       cannot\u00a0be\u00a0disclosed\u00a0–\u00a0or\u00a0even\u00a0particulars\u00a0about\u00a0whether,\u00a0and\u00a0who\u00a0
\n       made\u00a0such\u00a0declarations,\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0disclosed\u00a0– \u00a0 as\u00a0 it\u00a0would\u00a0entail\u00a0
\n       breach\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0duty\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CJI.\u00a0The\u00a0petitioners\u00a0rely\u00a0on\u00a0Section\u00a0
\n       8\u00a0(1)\u00a0(f)\u00a0to\u00a0submit\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0public\u00a0authority\u00a0is\u00a0under\u00a0no\u00a0obligation\u00a0to\u00a0
\n       furnish \u00a0“information \u00a0 available \u00a0 to \u00a0 a \u00a0 person \u00a0 in \u00a0 his \u00a0 fiduciary \u00a0
\n       relationship”. \u00a0The \u00a0 petitioners\u00a0 emphasize \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 1997 \u00a0 Resolution\u00a0
\n       crucially\u00a0states\u00a0that:\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “The\u00a0declaration\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Judges\u00a0or\u00a0the\u00a0Chief\u00a0Justice,\u00a0as\u00a0
\n                the\u00a0case\u00a0may\u00a0be,\u00a0shall\u00a0be\u00a0confidential.”\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The\u00a0respondent,\u00a0and\u00a0interveners,\u00a0counter\u00a0the\u00a0submission\u00a0and\u00a0say\u00a0
\n       that\u00a0CJI\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0stand\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0position\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0judges\u00a0of\u00a0
\n       the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court,\u00a0who\u00a0occupy\u00a0high\u00a0Constitutional\u00a0office;\u00a0they\u00a0enjoy\u00a0
\n       the\u00a0same\u00a0judicial\u00a0powers,\u00a0and\u00a0immunities\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0CJI\u00a0cannot\u00a0
\n       exercise\u00a0any\u00a0kind\u00a0of\u00a0control\u00a0over\u00a0them.\u00a0In\u00a0these\u00a0circumstances,\u00a0there\u00a0
\n       is\u00a0 no\u00a0 “fiduciary”\u00a0 relationship,\u00a0 least\u00a0 of\u00a0 all\u00a0 in \u00a0 relation\u00a0 to \u00a0 making\u00a0 the\u00a0
\n       asset\u00a0declarations\u00a0available\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0CJI,\u00a0who\u00a0holds\u00a0it\u00a0because\u00a0of\u00a0his\u00a0
\n       status\u00a0as\u00a0CJI.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0argued\u00a0that\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0relationship\u00a0is\u00a0created,\u00a0
\n       where\u00a0one\u00a0person\u00a0depends,\u00a0on,\u00a0or\u00a0entrusts\u00a0his\u00a0affairs\u00a0to\u00a055.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0
\n       necessary\u00a0to\u00a0first\u00a0discern\u00a0what\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0relationship\u00a0is,\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0
\n       term\u00a0 has\u00a0 not\u00a0been\u00a0 defined\u00a0 in\u00a0 the\u00a0Act.\u00a0 In \u00a0Bristol\u00a0 &\u00a0West\u00a0Building \u00a0
\n       Society\u00a0v.\u00a0Mathew\u00a0[1998]\u00a0Ch\u00a01,\u00a0the\u00a0term\u00a0“fiduciary”,\u00a0was\u00a0described\u00a0
\n       as\u00a0under:\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
          “A\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0is\u00a0someone\u00a0who\u00a0has\u00a0undertaken\u00a0to\u00a0act\u00a0for\u00a0and\u00a0on \u00a0
\n         behalf \u00a0 of \u00a0 another \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 particular \u00a0 matter \u00a0 in \u00a0 circumstances \u00a0
\n         which\u00a0give\u00a0rise\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0relationship\u00a0of\u00a0trust\u00a0and\u00a0confidence.”\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dale\u00a0&\u00a0Carrington\u00a0Invt.\u00a0(P)\u00a0Ltd.\u00a0v.\u00a0P.K.\u00a0Prathapan,\u00a0(2005)\u00a01\u00a0SCC\u00a0212\u00a0
\nand\u00a0Needle\u00a0Industries\u00a0(India)\u00a0Ltd\u00a0v.\u00a0Needle\u00a0Industries\u00a0(Newey)\u00a0India\u00a0
\nHolding\u00a0Ltd:\u00a01981\u00a0(3)\u00a0SCC\u00a0333\u00a0establish\u00a0that\u00a0Directors\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0company\u00a0
\nowe\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0duties\u00a0to\u00a0its\u00a0shareholders.\u00a0In \u00a0P.V.\u00a0Sankara\u00a0Kurup\u00a0v. \u00a0
\nLeelavathy\u00a0Nambiar,\u00a0(1994)\u00a06\u00a0SCC\u00a068,\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0
\nan\u00a0agent\u00a0and\u00a0power\u00a0of\u00a0attorney\u00a0holder\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0said\u00a0to\u00a0owe\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0
\nrelationship\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0principal.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
56. \u00a0 In \u00a0 a \u00a0 recent \u00a0 decision \u00a0 (Mr. \u00a0 Krishna \u00a0 Gopal \u00a0 Kakani \u00a0 v. \u00a0 Bank \u00a0 of \u00a0
\nBaroda \u00a02008\u00a0(13)\u00a0SCALE\u00a0160)\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0had\u00a0to\u00a0decide\u00a0
\nwhether\u00a0a\u00a0transaction\u00a0resulted\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0relationship.\u00a0Money\u00a0was\u00a0
\nsought\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0recovered\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiff,\u00a0from\u00a0a\u00a0bank,\u00a0who\u00a0had\u00a0moved\u00a0
\nthe\u00a0court\u00a0for\u00a0auction\u00a0of\u00a0goods\u00a0imported,\u00a0and\u00a0retained\u00a0the\u00a0proceeds;\u00a0
\nthe\u00a0trail\u00a0court\u00a0overruled\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0to\u00a0maintainability,\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0
\nthe\u00a0bank\u00a0held\u00a0the\u00a0surplus\u00a0(of\u00a0the\u00a0proceeds)\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0capacity.\u00a0
\nThe\u00a0High\u00a0Court\u00a0upset\u00a0the\u00a0trial\u00a0court’s\u00a0findings,\u00a0ruling\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0bank\u00a0
\ndid\u00a0not\u00a0act\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0capacity.\u00a0The\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0affirmed\u00a0the\u00a0
\nHigh\u00a0Court’s\u00a0findings.\u00a0The\u00a0court\u00a0noticed\u00a0Section\u00a088\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Trusts\u00a0Act,\u00a0
\nwhich\u00a0reads\u00a0as\u00a0follows:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
         “Section \u00a0 88. \u00a0 Advantage \u00a0 gained \u00a0 by \u00a0 fiduciary. \u00a0 \u00ad \u00a0 Where \u00a0 a \u00a0
\n         trustee,\u00a0executor,\u00a0partner,\u00a0agent,\u00a0director\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0company,\u00a0legal \u00a0
\n         advisor, \u00a0 or \u00a0 other\u00a0 person \u00a0 bound \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 fiduciary \u00a0 character\u00a0 to \u00a0
\n         protect\u00a0the\u00a0interests\u00a0of\u00a0another\u00a0person,\u00a0by\u00a0availing\u00a0himself\u00a0of \u00a0
\n         his\u00a0character,\u00a0gains\u00a0for\u00a0himself\u00a0any\u00a0pecuniary\u00a0advantage,\u00a0or \u00a0
\n         where\u00a0any\u00a0 person\u00a0so\u00a0are,\u00a0or\u00a0may\u00a0be,\u00a0 adverse\u00a0to\u00a0those\u00a0of \u00a0
\n         such\u00a0other\u00a0person\u00a0and\u00a0thereby\u00a0gains\u00a0for\u00a0himself\u00a0a\u00a0pecuniary \u00a0
\n         advantage,\u00a0he\u00a0must\u00a0hold\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0benefit\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0other\u00a0person \u00a0
\n         the\u00a0advantage\u00a0so\u00a0gained.”\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Affirming \u00a0 the \u00a0 High \u00a0 Court’s \u00a0 findings \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 bank \u00a0 did \u00a0 not \u00a0 owe \u00a0 a\u00a0
\nfiduciary\u00a0responsibility\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant,\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0held\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0
\nCourt,\u00a0that:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
         “9.\u00a0An\u00a0analysis\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0Section\u00a0would\u00a0show\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Bank,\u00a0to \u00a0
\n         whom\u00a0the\u00a0money\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0entrusted,\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0capacity \u00a0
\n         set\u00a0out\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0provision\u00a0itself.\u00a0The\u00a0question\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0fiduciary \u00a0<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\n         relationship\u00a0therefore\u00a0arising\u00a0between\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0must\u00a0therefore \u00a0
\n        be\u00a0ruled\u00a0out.\u00a0It\u00a0bears\u00a0reiteration\u00a0that\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0no\u00a0evidence\u00a0to \u00a0
\n        show\u00a0that\u00a0any\u00a0trust\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0created\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0suit \u00a0
\n        money.”\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The\u00a0following\u00a0kinds\u00a0of\u00a0relationships\u00a0may\u00a0broadly\u00a0be\u00a0categorized\u00a0as\u00a0
\n“fiduciary”:\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
    \u2022 Trustee\/beneficiary (Section\u00a088,\u00a0Indian\u00a0Trusts\u00a0Act,\u00a01882)\u00a0
\n    \u2022 \u00a0Legal\u00a0guardians\u00a0\/\u00a0wards\u00a0(Section\u00a020,\u00a0Guardians\u00a0and\u00a0Wards\u00a0
\n    Act,\u00a01890)\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Lawyer\/client;\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    \u2022 Executors\u00a0and\u00a0administrators\u00a0\/\u00a0legatees\u00a0and\u00a0heirs\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Board\u00a0of\u00a0directors\u00a0\/\u00a0company\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Liquidator\/company\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Receivers,\u00a0trustees\u00a0in\u00a0bankruptcy\u00a0and\u00a0assignees\u00a0in\u00a0insolvency\u00a0
\n    \/\u00a0creditors\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Doctor\/patient\u00a0
\n    \u2022 Parent\/child:\u00a0\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
57.\u00a0The\u00a0Advanced\u00a0Law\u00a0Lexicon,\u00a03rd\u00a0Edition,\u00a02005,\u00a0defines\u00a0fiduciary\u00a0
\nrelationship\u00a0as\u00a0
\n        “a\u00a0relationship\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0one\u00a0person\u00a0is\u00a0under\u00a0a\u00a0duty\u00a0to\u00a0act\u00a0for \u00a0
\n        the\u00a0benefit\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0matters\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0scope\u00a0of\u00a0the \u00a0
\n        relationship….Fiduciary \u00a0 relationship \u00a0 usually \u00a0 arise \u00a0 in \u00a0 one \u00a0 of \u00a0
\n        the\u00a0four\u00a0situations\u00a0(1)\u00a0when\u00a0one\u00a0person\u00a0places\u00a0trust\u00a0in\u00a0the \u00a0
\n        faithful\u00a0integrity\u00a0of\u00a0another,\u00a0who\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0result\u00a0gains\u00a0superiority\u00a0or \u00a0
\n        influence\u00a0over\u00a0the\u00a0first,\u00a0(2)\u00a0when\u00a0one\u00a0person\u00a0assumes\u00a0control \u00a0
\n        and\u00a0responsibility\u00a0over\u00a0another,\u00a0(3)\u00a0when\u00a0one\u00a0person\u00a0has\u00a0a \u00a0
\n        duty\u00a0to\u00a0act\u00a0or\u00a0give\u00a0advice\u00a0to\u00a0another\u00a0on\u00a0matters\u00a0falling\u00a0within \u00a0
\n        the\u00a0scope\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0relationship,\u00a0or\u00a0(4)\u00a0when\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0 specific \u00a0
\n        relationship\u00a0that\u00a0has\u00a0traditionally\u00a0be\u00a0recognized\u00a0as\u00a0involving\u00a0
\n        fiduciary \u00a0 duties, \u00a0 as \u00a0 with \u00a0 a \u00a0 lawyer \u00a0 and \u00a0 a \u00a0 client, \u00a0 or \u00a0 a \u00a0
\n        stockbroker\u00a0and\u00a0a\u00a0customer”\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
58. \u00a0 From \u00a0 the \u00a0 above \u00a0 discussion, \u00a0 it \u00a0 may \u00a0 be \u00a0 seen \u00a0 that \u00a0 a \u00a0fiduciary
\nrelationship is\u00a0one\u00a0whereby\u00a0a\u00a0person\u00a0places\u00a0complete\u00a0confidence\u00a0in\u00a0
\nanother\u00a0in\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0a\u00a0particular\u00a0transaction\u00a0or\u00a0his\u00a0general\u00a0affairs\u00a0or\u00a0
\nbusiness. \u00a0 The \u00a0 relationship \u00a0 need \u00a0 not \u00a0 be \u00a0 “formally” \u00a0 or \u00a0 “legally”\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
        ordained,\u00a0or\u00a0established,\u00a0like\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0written\u00a0trust;\u00a0but\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0
\n       one\u00a0of\u00a0moral\u00a0or\u00a0personal\u00a0responsibility,\u00a0due\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0better\u00a0or\u00a0superior\u00a0
\n       knowledge \u00a0 or \u00a0 training, \u00a0 or \u00a0 superior \u00a0 status \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 fiduciary \u00a0 as\u00a0
\n       compared\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0one\u00a0whose\u00a0affairs\u00a0he\u00a0handles.\u00a0If\u00a0viewed\u00a0from\u00a0this\u00a0
\n       perspective, \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0 immediately \u00a0 apparent \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 CJI \u00a0 cannot \u00a0 be \u00a0 a\u00a0
\n       fiduciary\u00a0vis\u00ad\u00e0\u00advis\u00a0Judges\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court;\u00a0he\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0said\u00a0to\u00a0
\n       have\u00a0superior\u00a0knowledge,\u00a0or\u00a0be\u00a0better\u00a0trained,\u00a0to\u00a0aid\u00a0or\u00a0control\u00a0their\u00a0
\n       affairs\u00a0or\u00a0conduct.\u00a0Judges\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0hold\u00a0independent\u00a0
\n       office,\u00a0and\u00a0are\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0no\u00a0hierarchy,\u00a0in\u00a0their\u00a0judicial\u00a0functions,\u00a0which\u00a0
\n       places \u00a0 them \u00a0 at \u00a0 a \u00a0 different \u00a0 plane \u00a0 than \u00a0 the \u00a0 CJI. \u00a0 In \u00a0 these\u00a0
\n       circumstances,\u00a0it\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0asset\u00a0information\u00a0shared\u00a0with\u00a0
\n       the\u00a0CJI,\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0judges\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court,\u00a0are\u00a0held\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0
\n       capacity\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0fiduciary,\u00a0which\u00a0if\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0revealed,\u00a0would\u00a0result\u00a0
\n       in \u00a0 breach \u00a0 of \u00a0 such \u00a0 duty. \u00a0 So \u00a0 far \u00a0 as \u00a0 the \u00a0 argument \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 1997\u00a0
\n       Resolution\u00a0 had\u00a0 imposed\u00a0 a \u00a0 confidentiality\u00a0 obligation\u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 CJI\u00a0 to\u00a0
\n       ensure\u00a0non\u00addisclosure\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0asset\u00a0declarations,\u00a0is\u00a0concerned,\u00a0the\u00a0
\n       court\u00a0is\u00a0of\u00a0opinion\u00a0that\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0advent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act,\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0provision\u00a0in\u00a0
\n       Section\u00a022\u00a0–\u00a0which\u00a0overrides\u00a0all\u00a0other\u00a0laws,\u00a0etc.\u00a0(even\u00a0overriding\u00a0the\u00a0
\n       Official \u00a0 Secrets \u00a0 Act) \u00a0 the \u00a0 argument \u00a0 about \u00a0 such \u00a0 a \u00a0 confidentiality\u00a0
\n       condition\u00a0is\u00a0on\u00a0a\u00a0weak\u00a0foundation.\u00a0The\u00a0mere\u00a0marking\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0document,\u00a0
\n       as\u00a0“confidential”,\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case,\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0undermine\u00a0the\u00a0overbearing\u00a0
\n       nature\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a022.\u00a0Concededly,\u00a0the\u00a0confidentiality\u00a0clause\u00a0(in\u00a0the\u00a0
\n       1997\u00a0Resolution)\u00a0operated,\u00a0and\u00a0many\u00a0might\u00a0have\u00a0bona\u00a0fide\u00a0believed\u00a0
\n       that\u00a0it\u00a0would\u00a0ensure\u00a0immunity\u00a0from\u00a0access.\u00a0Yet\u00a0the\u00a0advent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act\u00a0
\n       changed\u00a0all\u00a0that;\u00a0all\u00a0classes\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0became\u00a0its\u00a0subject\u00a0matter.\u00a0
\n       Section\u00a08(1)\u00a0(f)\u00a0affords\u00a0protection\u00a0to\u00a0one\u00a0such\u00a0class,\u00a0i.e.\u00a0fiduciaries.\u00a0
\n       The \u00a0 content \u00a0 of \u00a0 such \u00a0 provision \u00a0 may \u00a0 include \u00a0 certain \u00a0 kind \u00a0 of\u00a0
\n       relationships \u00a0 of \u00a0 public \u00a0 officials, \u00a0 such \u00a0 as \u00a0 doctor\u00adpatient \u00a0 relations;\u00a0
\n       teacher\u00adpupil \u00a0 relationships, \u00a0 in \u00a0 government \u00a0 schools \u00a0 and \u00a0 colleges;\u00a0
\n       agents\u00a0of\u00a0governments;\u00a0even\u00a0attorneys\u00a0and\u00a0lawyers\u00a0who\u00a0appear\u00a0and\u00a0
\n       advise\u00a0public\u00a0authorities\u00a0covered\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Act.\u00a0However,\u00a0it\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0
\n       cover\u00a0asset\u00a0declarations\u00a0made\u00a0by\u00a0Judges\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court,\u00a0and\u00a0
\n       held\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CJI.\u00a0“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       If CPIO is still of the view that disclosure of the identity of certain parties
\nthat have contributed to the noting will be in violation of a fiduciary relationship in<\/p>\n
                                                7<\/span>
\n light of the above definition of fiduciary relationship laid down by the Delhi High
\nCourt, he will now disclose the complete file noting after severance of the
\nexempted portion u\/s 10(1) to appellant Shri Anurag Goel within ten working days
\nof the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. This appeal is allowed to this extent.
\nThere will be no costs<\/p>\n
       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n3.6.2010<\/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
\n3.6.2010<\/p>\n
                                          8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000355 dated 25.3.2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Anurag Goel Respondent – Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Decision announced: 3.6.2010 Facts : By an application of 14.10.08 Shri Anurag Goel […]<\/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-136400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 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-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-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=\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-23T01:57:19+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=\"12 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-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T01:57:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2464,\"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-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-23T01:57:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 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.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 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-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-23T01:57:19+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T01:57:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010"},"wordCount":2464,"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-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010","name":"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-23T01:57:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-anurag-goel-vs-union-public-service-commission-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Anurag Goel vs Union Public Service Commission on 3 June, 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\/136400","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=136400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}