{"id":138230,"date":"2011-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-22T16:52:48","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T11:22:48","slug":"mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                             Club Building (Near Post Office),\n                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.\n                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796\n                                                              Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001809\/15259\n                                                                      Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001809\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n
Appellant                             :       Mr. Tanmoy Samajdar
\n                                              Flat No. A1, 381 & 382a,
\n                                              M.G. Road, Kolkata-700082..\n<\/p>\n
Respondent                            :       Mr. S. K. Dhar,\n                                              Registrar & CPIO\n                                              Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute,\n                                              E.M. Bypass Road, P.O.Panchasayar.,\n                                              Kolkata-700094.\n\nRTI application filed on              :       01\/03\/2011\nPIO replied                           :       17\/03\/2011\nFirst appeal filed on                 :       22\/03\/2011\nFirst Appellate Authority order       :       18\/04\/2011\nSecond Appeal received on             :       12\/07\/2011\n\n Sl.                  Information Sought                                          Reply\n1.     Proceedings of the D.P.C. which was held on 08        A copy of the minutes of the DPC is enclosed.\n       Jan. 2010 for the post of Senior Manager (IT)\n2.     Assessment of Shri Samajdar's confidential        An ACR is a confidential document, and hence,\n<\/pre>\n
       reports for the last 6 years from the year 2004-  disclosure of the same is protected by the Official
\n       2009 with the copy of the ACR reports for the     Secrets Act, 1923. Moreover, disclosure of these
\n       mentioned period.                                 documents will not serve any public interest. In
\n                                                         view of this, the copies of the ACRs can not be
\n                                                         provided.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Consent letter of the Dean of Shibpur BE Copies of letter dated 01.12.2010 of Dean, BESU,
\n       College, the HOD of Computer Science              Shibpur and letter dated 03.11.2010 of Professor
\n       department of Jadavpur University for eligibility & Head, Jadavpur University are enclosed.
\n       of M Tech Computer Technology in the post of
\n       Senior Manager (IT)<\/p>\n
Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority:\n<\/p>\n
“Clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of RTI Act provides that that is no obligation to give any citizen
\ninformation which relates to personal information and disclosure of which has no relationship to any
\npublic activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless
\nthe Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the ease may be, is satisfied that the larger
\npublic interest justifies the disclosure of such information.\n<\/p>\n
 DOPT’s O.M. No. 10\/20\/2006-1R dated the 21’st September, 2007, states that the public authority is not
\nunder obligation to disclose ACRs of any employee to the employee himself or to any other person
\ninasmuch as disclosure of ACRs is protected by clause(j) of sub-section (1) of Section of RTI Act and an
\n                                                                                              Page 1 of 4<\/span>
\n ACR is a confidential document, disclosure of which is protected by the Official Secrets Act, 1923..
\nHowever, the public authority has disruption to disclose the Annual Confidential Reports of an employee
\nto the employee himself or to any other person, if the public authority is satisfied that the public interest in
\ndisclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. If it is felt that public interest in disclosure of
\nACR of any employee outweighs the protected interests, decision to disclose the ACRs ; should be taken
\nwith the approval of the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
The undersigned, after careful consideration of the submissions made by the appellant in his appeal
\npetition dated 22-03-2011, provisions under Clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8of RTJ Act, 2005
\nand DoPT’s ON. No10\/20\/20061R dated the 2l September, 2007, referred to above, holds that the records
\nof service including ACRs are maintained in public interest and ACRs being confidential documents, are
\nprotected from disclosure as per the Official Secrets Act, 1923 Since the disclosure of the ACRs in the
\ninstant case is not in public interest, the undersigned dens the information to the appellant.”
\nGrounds for Second Appeal
\nUnsatisfactory reply was received by the Applicant.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant : Mr. Tanmoy Samajdar on video conference from NIC-Kolkata Studio;
\nRespondent : Mr. S. K. Dhar, Registrar & CPIO on video conference from NIC-Kolkata Studio;\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant has sought copies of his ACR and the PIO and FAA have refused to give this
\ninformation claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) & (e) of the RTI Act. The FAA has also upheld the
\ndecision of the PIO. Firstly the Commission notes that when a person asks for information about himself it
\ncannot be denied to him on the grounds of Section 8(1)(j) since a person cannot invade his own privacy.\n<\/p>\n
Under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, information which has been exempted is defined as:
\n   “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to
\n   any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
\n   individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or
\n   the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the
\n   disclosure of such information: …”\n<\/p>\n
To qualify for the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the information must satisfy the
\nfollowing criteria:\n<\/p>\n
   1. It must be personal information: Words in a law should normally be given the meaning given in
\n   common language. In common language, we would ascribe the adjective ‘personal’ to an attribute
\n   which applies to an individual and not to an institution or a Corporate. Therefore, it flows that
\n   ‘personal’ cannot be related to institutions, organisations or corporates. Hence Section 8(1)(j) of the
\n   RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organisations or corporates.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The phrase ‘disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest’ means that
\n   the information must have been given in the course of a public activity. Various public authorities in
\n   performing their functions routinely ask for ‘personal’ information from citizens, and this is clearly a
\n   public activity. Public activities would typically include situations wherein a person applies for a job,
\n   or gives information about himself to a public authority as an employee, or asks for a permission,
\n   licence or authorisation, or provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation.\n<\/p>\n
   3. The disclosure of the information would lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
\n   individual. The State has no right to invade the privacy of an individual. There are some extraordinary
\n   situations where the State may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. In those circumstances
\n                                                                                                    Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n    special provisions of the law apply usually with certain safeguards. Therefore where the State
\n   routinely obtains information from citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and
\n   will not be an intrusion on privacy.\n<\/p>\n
Certain human rights such as liberty, freedom of expression or right to life are universal and therefore
\nwould apply uniformly to all human beings worldwide. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ is a cultural
\nnotion, related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore referring
\nto the Data Protection Act, 1988 of U. K. or the laws of other countries to define ‘privacy’ cannot be
\nconsidered a valid exercise to constrain the citizen’s fundamental right to information in India. Parliament
\nhas not codified the right to privacy so far, hence, in balancing the right to information of citizens and the
\nindividual’s right to privacy, the citizen’s right to information would be given greater weightage.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the information sought is “personal” information inasmuch as it
\nis the Annual Confidential Report of a government officer. The ACR is a report that evaluates the work
\nand performance of a public servant. The public authority concerned, must necessarily have this
\ninformation so to make an assessment of its officers’ performance. The ACR, containing certain
\ninformation about the officer is disclosed by the officer to the public authority and such report is prepared
\nby the public authority. This is necessarily done in the course of a public activity. Disclosure of such
\ninformation cannot be construed as unwarranted invasion of privacy of the officer concerned as it
\nconcerns issues raised in the exercise of his public activity as a public servant. Moreover, a public servant
\nis accountable to the public and therefore, every citizen has the right to obtain information that may assess
\nhis credibility, integrity and performance.\n<\/p>\n
It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. ADR in Appeal (Civil) 178
\nof 2001 and W. P. (Civil) 294 of 2001 decided on 02\/05\/2002, observed that persons who aspire to be
\npublic servants by getting elected have to declare inter alia their property details, any conviction\/ acquittal
\nof criminal charges, etc. It follows that persons who are already public servants cannot claim exemptions
\nfrom disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. Given our dismal record of
\nmisgovernance and rampant corruption which colludes to deny citizens’ their essential rights and dignity,
\nit is imperative for achieving the goal of democracy that the citizens’ right to information is given greater
\nprimacy with regard to privacy.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, disclosure of information such as property details, any conviction\/ acquittal of criminal
\ncharges, etc of a public servant, which is routinely collected by the public authority and provided by the
\npublic servants, cannot be construed as an invasion of the privacy of an individual and must be provided
\nan applicant under the RTI Act. Similarly, citizens have a right to know about the strengths and
\nweaknesses as well as performance evaluation of all public servants. The government is elected by the
\ncitizens of India and it is the duty of such government through its officers to protect the rights of the
\ncitizens. The salary of such government officers is also paid from the public exchequer. For these reasons,
\nevery citizen has the right to know and obtain information about the performance of every public servant
\nor government officer to ascertain whether the duties entrusted to such public servant or government
\nofficer are being carried out.\n<\/p>\n
It would not be out of place to mention that the terminology “Annual Confidential Report” has been used
\nsince the British times when ‘secrecy’ was the guiding notion for the government and consequently, the
\nwork done by the latter was not for the citizens’ perusal and kept confidential. This was evidenced by the
\nenactment of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Over the years, this trend has undergone a drastic change
\ninasmuch as the Indian judiciary recognised the citizen’s right to have access to information under the
\ncontrol of government entities in order to bring about transparency and accountability in the functioning
\nof every government department. This was given a statutory ratification by way of the Right to
\nInformation Act, 2005, which recognised the citizen’s fundamental right to information. The RTI Act
\nendeavours to do away with the notion of ‘secrecy’ which was prevalent in the British era and carried
\n                                                                                                   Page 3 of 4<\/span>
\n forwarded thereafter inasmuch as Section 22 of the RTI Act specifically provides that the RTI Act shall
\noverride the Official Secrets Act, 1923 irrespective of any inconsistency contained in the latter.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the foregoing arguments this Commission holds that performance appraisals,- known as annual
\nconfidential reports since the days of British Raj,- are not covered by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and
\ndisclosure of these cannot be construed as invasion on the privacy of an individual.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO had stressed exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) exempts from
\ndisclosure ‘information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority
\nis satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;’<\/p>\n
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
\nsomeone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that relationship. In
\nbusiness or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular
\nprofession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of
\nsuch a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a
\nchoice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient
\ngoes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary
\nrelationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one
\nwho is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot
\nbe classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job,
\nor to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the above the Commission does not uphold the contention of the PIO that the ACRs are held in
\na fiduciary capacity by the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant to him
\nbefore 10 November 2011.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                        Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                              Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                        21 October 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(ved)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                             Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office), Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001809\/15259 Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001809 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Tanmoy Samajdar Flat No. A1, 381 & […]<\/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-138230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - 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-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-22T11:22:48+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=\"11 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-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T11:22:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2076,\"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-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T11:22:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - 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-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-22T11:22:48+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T11:22:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011"},"wordCount":2076,"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-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011","name":"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television ... on 21 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T11:22:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-tanmoy-samajdar-vs-satyajit-ray-film-and-television-on-21-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Tanmoy Samajdar. vs Satyajit Ray Film And Television … on 21 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/138230","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=138230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}