{"id":143666,"date":"2011-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-27T05:29:22","modified_gmt":"2016-05-26T23:59:22","slug":"p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","title":{"rendered":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">.P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                            In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0\n                                                            at\n                                                     New\u00a0Delhi\n\n                                                                                        File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/OK\/C\/2008\/00897\n\n\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing             :\u00a0\u00a0June\u00a024,\u00a02011\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision                      :\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a011,\u00a02011\n\n\nParties:\n\n         Applicant\n\n         Shri\u00a0P.C.\u00a0George\n         (Poonjar)\n         Member,\u00a0Kerala\u00a0Legislative\u00a0Assembly\n         Plathottam\n         Brattupetta\u00a0-\u00a02\n         Kottayam\n         Kerala\n\n         The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0was\u00a0represented\u00a0by\u00a0Shri\u00a0Vinod\u00a0Yadav\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\n\n         Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>         The\u00a0Public\u00a0Information\u00a0Officer<br \/>\n         Ministry\u00a0of\u00a0External\u00a0Affairs<br \/>\n         Akbar\u00a0Bhawan<br \/>\n         New\u00a0Delhi<\/p>\n<p>         Represented\u00a0by:              Shri\u00a0Debraj\u00a0Pradhan,\u00a0CPIO<br \/>\n                                      Shri\u00a0Suresh\u00a0Babu,\u00a0Director\u00a0(ERS)<\/p>\n<p>                            Information\u00a0Commissioner              :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit<br \/>\n_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n<p>                                                    Decision\u00a0Notice<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0brought\u00a0forth\u00a0any\u00a0additional\u00a0and\/or\u00a0substantial\u00a0argument\u00a0justifying\u00a0the\u00a0non\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation\u00a0till\u00a0date.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0absence\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0specific\u00a0reason\u00a0there\u00a0seems\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0no\u00a0reason\u00a0to\u00a0interfere\u00a0with\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0original\u00a0decision.\u00a0Information\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0or\u00a0within\u00a016th\u00a0August\u00a02011.\u00a0<br \/>\nIt\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00a0no\u00a0tangible\u00a0reason\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0either\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0or\u00a0for\u00a0not\u00a0<br \/>\nbringing \u00a0 the \u00a0 new \u00a0 facts \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 earlier. \u00a0 Despite \u00a0 repeated \u00a0 opportunities \u00a0 being \u00a0 granted, \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nRespondents\u00a0have\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0able\u00a0to\u00a0justify\u00a0the\u00a0delay.\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0imposes\u00a0a\u00a0penalty\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.25,000\/\u00ad\u00a0<br \/>\n on \u00a0 the \u00a0 then \u00a0 PIO \u00a0 for \u00a0 misleading \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 with \u00a0 incorrect \u00a0 averments \u00a0 from \u00a0 time \u00a0 to \u00a0 time \u00a0 thereby\u00a0<br \/>\nobstructing\u00a0the\u00a0furnishing\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0delaying\u00a0the\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Application\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nstipulated\u00a0time.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority,\u00a0MEA\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0recover\u00a0a\u00a0sum\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.25,000\/\u00ad\u00a0in\u00a0five\u00a0monthly\u00a0<br \/>\ninstallments\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.\u00a05000\/\u00ad\u00a0and\u00a0send\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0Demand\u00a0Draft\u00a0drawn\u00a0in\u00a0favour\u00a0of \u00a0PAO,\u00a0<br \/>\nCAT \u00a0and \u00a0 send \u00a0 the \u00a0 same \u00a0 addressed \u00a0 to \u00a0 Shri \u00a0 G. \u00a0 Subramanian, \u00a0 Deputy \u00a0 Registrar, \u00a0 Central \u00a0 Information\u00a0<br \/>\nCommission,\u00a0Club\u00a0Building,\u00a0Old\u00a0JNU\u00a0Campus,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0110\u00a0067.\u00a0The\u00a0first\u00a0installment\u00a0should\u00a0reach\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nCommission\u00a0by\u00a016.08.2011\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0last\u00a0installment\u00a0should\u00a0reach\u00a0by\u00a015.12.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>                \u00a0\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                               at<br \/>\n                                                       New\u00a0Delhi<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                              File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/OK\/C\/2008\/00897<\/p>\n<p>                                   Adjunct\u00a0to\u00a0CIC\u00a0Decision\u00a0dated\u00a009.05.2011<\/p>\n<p>1.   The\u00a0Commission\u00a0passed\u00a0the\u00a0captioned\u00a0order\u00a0dated\u00a09th\u00a0May\u00a02011\u00a0based\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0contentions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     parties,\u00a0relevant\u00a0part\u00a0whereof\u00a0is\u00a0as\u00a0hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;..4. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Respondents\u00a0in\u00a0their\u00a0defence\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0their\u00a0process\u00a0of\u00a0procuring\u00a0information \u00a0<br \/>\n             as \u00a0 directed \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission, \u00a0 the \u00a0 MEA \u00a0 had \u00a0 in \u00a0 fact \u00a0 approached \u00a0 the \u00a0 Department \u00a0 of \u00a0<br \/>\n             Economic\u00a0Affairs,\u00a0Ministry\u00a0of\u00a0Finance\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0communication\u00a0dated\u00a017.02.2010\u00a0seeking\u00a0the \u00a0<br \/>\n             required\u00a0documents.\u00a0The\u00a0DEA,\u00a0MoF\u00a0by\u00a0its\u00a0communication\u00a0dated\u00a019.02.2010\u00a0had\u00a0enclosed \u00a0<br \/>\n             copies\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0documents\u00a0forwarding\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0JS\u00a0(ERS)\u00a0MEA.\u00a0The\u00a0JS\u00a0(ERS) \u00a0<br \/>\n             MEA\u00a0sought\u00a0the\u00a0opinion\u00a0of\u00a0MEA&#8217;s\u00a0Legal\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Treaties\u00a0Division,\u00a0being\u00a0unable\u00a0to\u00a0comment\u00a0on \u00a0<br \/>\n             the \u00a0 political \u00a0 and \u00a0 legal \u00a0 angle\u00a0 on\u00a0 releasing\u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0 said \u00a0 documents.\u00a0 The\u00a0 L&amp;T\u00a0 Division \u00a0 in \u00a0<br \/>\n             response\u00a0 stated\u00a0 that\u00a0 sensitivity\u00a0 of\u00a0the\u00a0 issue\u00a0 needs\u00a0 to\u00a0be\u00a0determined\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0 concerned \u00a0<br \/>\n             administrative\u00a0Ministry\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0essentially\u00a0involve\u00a0financial\u00a0issues.\u00a0If\u00a0there\u00a0is \u00a0<br \/>\n             any\u00a0specific\u00a0legal\u00a0question\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0these\u00a0agreements\u00a0then\u00a0that\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0flagged\u00a0for\u00a0the \u00a0<br \/>\n             L&amp;T\u00a0Division\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0examined.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>             5.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0All\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0averments\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0establish\u00a0clearly\u00a0that\u00a0all\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0exercise \u00a0<br \/>\n             undertaken\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority\u00a0after\u00a0receiving\u00a0the\u00a0Commission&#8217;s\u00a0Order\u00a0dated\u00a012.1.10, \u00a0<br \/>\n             was\u00a0belated\u00a0and\u00a0irrelevant\u00a0as\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0compliance\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Commission&#8217;s\u00a0order\u00a0is\u00a0concerned \u00a0<br \/>\n             and\u00a0proved\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0ineffective\u00a0in\u00a0furnishing\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0time \u00a0<br \/>\n             as\u00a0 prescribed \u00a0 by \u00a0 the\u00a0 Commission.\u00a0 Accordingly,\u00a0 the\u00a0 Commission\u00a0 issues\u00a0 a\u00a0 Show\u00a0 Cause \u00a0<br \/>\n             notice\u00a0calling\u00a0upon\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority\u00a0to\u00a0explain\u00a0the\u00a0cause\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0and \u00a0<br \/>\n             why\u00a0a\u00a0penalty\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0tune\u00a0of\u00a0Rs\u00a025,000\/\u00ad\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0imposed\u00a0upon\u00a0them.\u00a0Reply\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Show \u00a0<br \/>\n                                                            th<br \/>\n             Cause\u00a0to\u00a0reach\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0by\u00a025 \u00a0May\u00a02011.\u00a0Furthermore,\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0fact\u00a0that\u00a0the \u00a0<br \/>\n             Public \u00a0 Authority \u00a0 (MEA) \u00a0 had \u00a0 orally \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 during \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 that \u00a0 they \u00a0 were \u00a0 in \u00a0 fact \u00a0<br \/>\n             inclined\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0as\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant\u00a0as\u00a0already\u00a0discussed, \u00a0<br \/>\n             therefore,\u00a0there\u00a0remains\u00a0no\u00a0ground\u00a0to\u00a0delay\u00a0the\u00a0dissemination\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0any\u00a0further. \u00a0<br \/>\n             Hence, \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 directs \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 as \u00a0 sought \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Complainant \u00a0 be \u00a0<br \/>\n                                              th<br \/>\n             provided\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0within\u00a025 \u00a0May\u00a02011.\u00a0&#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The\u00a0Commission\u00a0received\u00a0a\u00a0letter\u00a0dated\u00a025.05.11\u00a0from\u00a0Shri\u00a0Debraj\u00a0Pradhan,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0in\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     the\u00a0Show\u00a0Cause\u00a0notice\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0following\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0dated\u00a012.01.2010\u00a0passed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CIC,\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     the\u00a0MEA\u00a0 \u00a0decided\u00a0to\u00a0take\u00a0a\u00a0fresh\u00a0look\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0issue\u00a0and\u00a0hence\u00a0had\u00a0 \u00a0requested\u00a0DEA\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     copies\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0documents,\u00a0for\u00a0examination.\u00a0The\u00a0DEA\u00a0while\u00a0providing\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0had\u00a0left\u00a0it\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     to\u00a0MEA\u00a0to\u00a0decide\u00a0the\u00a0release\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0documents\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant.\u00a0Considering\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0two\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     documents\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant\u00a0were\u00a0communications\u00a0between\u00a0high\u00a0dignitaries\u00a0of\u00a0India\u00a0<br \/>\n               and\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0foreign\u00a0country,\u00a0the\u00a0officials\u00a0of\u00a0MEA\u00a0deemed\u00a0it\u00a0appropriate\u00a0to\u00a0seek\u00a0comments\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              Legal\u00a0and\u00a0Treaties\u00a0(L&amp;T)\u00a0Division\u00a0of\u00a0MEA.\u00a0The\u00a0L&amp;T\u00a0Division\u00a0recommended\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0concerned\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              Territorial\/Administrative \u00a0 Division, \u00a0 i.e. \u00a0 Eurasia \u00a0 Division \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 Ministry \u00a0 make \u00a0 a \u00a0 judgment \u00a0 on\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              whether\u00a0or\u00a0not\u00a0to\u00a0release\u00a0the\u00a0document\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act,\u00a02005.\u00a0MEA\u00a0in\u00a0its\u00a0submissions\u00a0further\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              elaborated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Eurasia\u00a0Division\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Ministry\u00a0felt\u00a0it\u00a0appropriate\u00a0to\u00a0obtain\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0before\u00a0proceeding\u00a0with\u00a0its\u00a0recommendation\u00a0in\u00a0favour\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0release\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              documents. \u00a0Hence,\u00a0the\u00a0Ministry\u00a0took\u00a0up\u00a0the\u00a0issue\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0through\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              the\u00a0Embassy\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0Moscow\u00a0on\u00a0multiple\u00a0occasions\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0view\u00a0to\u00a0obtaining\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0side.\u00a0However,\u00a0despite\u00a0considerable\u00a0delay\u00a0no\u00a0response\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0obtained\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              by \u00a0 the \u00a0 MEA \u00a0 till \u00a0 recently \u00a0 when \u00a0 the \u00a0 Russian \u00a0 Government \u00a0 in \u00a0 an \u00a0 informal \u00a0 verbal\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              communication \u00a0 responded \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 Indian \u00a0 side&#8217;s \u00a0 formal \u00a0 request \u00a0 stating \u00a0 that \u00a0all \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              correspondences \u00a0 between\u00a0 the \u00a0 Soviet\u00a0 Union\/Russia \u00a0 with \u00a0 foreign\u00a0 Governments \u00a0 are \u00a0 as \u00a0 a \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              rule \u00a0 considered \u00a0 &#8216;confidential&#8217;, \u00a0 and \u00a0 that \u00a0 correspondences \u00a0 with \u00a0 foreign \u00a0 governments \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              dealing\u00a0 with\u00a0financial\u00a0matters\u00a0 (including\u00a0interest\u00a0 payments,\u00a0loans,\u00a0 credit\u00a0lines\u00a0 etc.)\u00a0 are \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              always\u00a0treated\u00a0as\u00a0&#8220;secret&#8221;\u00a0documents.\u00a0The\u00a0MEA\u00a0states\u00a0that\u00a0this\u00a0implies\u00a0that\u00a0Russia\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              favour\u00a0releasing\u00a0its\u00a0correspondences\u00a0with\u00a0 foreign \u00a0governments\u00a0in\u00a0 the\u00a0public\u00a0domain \u00a0unless\u00a0 it\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              receives\u00a0written\u00a0consent\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0foreign\u00a0government\u00a0and\u00a0it\u00a0expects\u00a0in\u00a0reciprocity,\u00a0the\u00a0foreign\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>              government\u00a0to\u00a0follow\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0practice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>3.            The\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Embassy\u00a0of\u00a0India,\u00a0Moscow\u00a0has\u00a0filed\u00a0another\u00a0formal\u00a0request\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     seeking\u00a0Russian\u00a0concurrence,\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0awaited.\u00a0The\u00a0Ministry\u00a0has\u00a0expressed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     side&#8217;s \u00a0 response \u00a0 now \u00a0 places \u00a0 Eurasia \u00a0 Division&#8217;s \u00a0 position \u00a0 as \u00a0 regards \u00a0 this \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 query \u00a0 in \u00a0 a \u00a0 complicated\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     situation,\u00a0apprehending\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0unilateral\u00a0release\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0contents\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0as\u00a0instructed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     CIC\u00a0may\u00a0lead\u00a0to\u00a0breach\u00a0of\u00a0trust\u00a0with\u00a0Russia,\u00a0India&#8217;s\u00a0strategic\u00a0partner\u00a0and\u00a0violate\u00a0a\u00a0legal\u00a0understanding\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     given\u00a0that\u00a0India\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0a\u00a0signatory\u00a0party\u00a0to\u00a0all\u00a0bilateral\u00a0documents.\u00a0The\u00a0MEA\u00a0further\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     RTI \u00a0 application\u00a0 under\u00a0 question,\u00a0 was\u00a0 given\u00a0 priority\u00a0 by\u00a0 Eurasia \u00a0 Division\u00a0 with\u00a0 the \u00a0objective\u00a0 of\u00a0 providing\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     timely\u00a0reply\u00a0as\u00a0stipulated\u00a0under\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act,\u00a02005,\u00a0and\u00a0best\u00a0attempts\u00a0were\u00a0made\u00a0to\u00a0seek\u00a0a\u00a0logical\u00a0conclusion\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     to\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0query.\u00a0But\u00a0the\u00a0nature\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant&#8217;s\u00a0query\u00a0being\u00a0such\u00a0that\u00a0information\u00a0could\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     arranged\u00a0with\u00a0routine\u00a0approvals\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0very\u00a0scope\u00a0of\u00a0such\u00a0information\u00a0stretched\u00a0beyond\u00a0the\u00a0realm\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     MEA \u00a0 and \u00a0 into \u00a0 the \u00a0 Government \u00a0 of \u00a0 India&#8217;s \u00a0 legal \u00a0 limits \u00a0 and \u00a0 entailed \u00a0 international \u00a0 juridical \u00a0 matters, \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     contents\u00a0in\u00a0question\u00a0being\u00a0inter\u00adgovernmental\u00a0bilateral\u00a0documents.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.             The \u00a0 PIO, \u00a0 MEA\u00a0 concluded\u00a0 that\u00a0 due \u00a0to \u00a0 such\u00a0 constraints, \u00a0 certain\u00a0 degree \u00a0 of\u00a0 oversight, \u00a0 as\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     pointed\u00a0out\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0particular\u00a0RTI\u00a0case,\u00a0did\u00a0occur\u00a0as\u00a0a\u00a0result\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0combination\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     aforementioned \u00a0 factors.\u00a0 However, \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO \u00a0 denied \u00a0 any \u00a0 negligence \u00a0 and \u00a0 malafide \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 part \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     officials \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Ministry \u00a0 in \u00a0 serving \u00a0 the \u00a0 national \u00a0 interest \u00a0 and \u00a0 in \u00a0 full \u00a0 reverence \u00a0 to \u00a0 their \u00a0 constitutional\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     obligations\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act,\u00a02005.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0therefore\u00a0sought\u00a0additional\u00a0time\u00a0so\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0matter\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     pursued\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0with\u00a0a\u00a0view\u00a0to\u00a0obtaining\u00a0their\u00a0written\u00a0consent\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0release\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     documents\u00a0as\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Complainant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.        It\u00a0is\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0new\u00a0facts\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0brought\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0such\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0obtained\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0brought\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0notice\u00a0earlier\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               during\u00a0the\u00a0previous\u00a0three\u00a0hearings\u00a0which\u00a0were\u00a0held\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0span\u00a0of\u00a0over\u00a0two\u00a0years.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               Hence, \u00a0 it \u00a0 was \u00a0 decided \u00a0 to \u00a0 hold \u00a0 a \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 on \u00a0 24.06.2011 \u00a0 and \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               Respondents \u00a0 were \u00a0 sent \u00a0 notices \u00a0 dated \u00a0 26.05.2011 \u00a0 to \u00a0 appear \u00a0 alongwith \u00a0 all \u00a0 the \u00a0 relevant\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               files\/documents\u00a0while\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0was\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0explain\u00a0as\u00a0why\u00a0he\u00a0should\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0penalized\u00a0for\u00a0his\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               failure\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0correct\u00a0information\u00a0and\u00a0for\u00a0not\u00a0bringing\u00a0this\u00a0fact\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0notice\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Commission,\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               by\u00a022.06.2011.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.        In\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0Show\u00a0Cause\u00a0notice\u00a0dated\u00a026.05.2011\u00a0issued\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CIC,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               received\u00a0a\u00a0letter\u00a0dated\u00a021.06.2011\u00a0from\u00a0Shri\u00a0Debraj\u00a0Pradhan,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0filing\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               the\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0in\u00a0May\u00a02008,\u00a0the\u00a0Eurasia\u00a0Division\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0taking\u00a0measures\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               comply\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0query.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0placed\u00a0reliance\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0contents\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Ministry&#8217;s\u00a0earlier\u00a0letter\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               dated\u00a025.05.2011\u00a0discussed\u00a0hereinabove\u00a0while\u00a0explaining\u00a0the\u00a0actions\u00a0taken\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Division\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               Russia\u00a0with\u00a0which\u00a0India\u00a0has\u00a0strategic\u00a0partnership\u00a0and\u00a0there\u00a0is,\u00a0inter\u00adalia,\u00a0an\u00a0informal\u00a0mechanism\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               of\u00a0interaction\u00a0in\u00a0practice.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0extremely\u00a0guarded\u00a0and\u00a0closed\u00a0system\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               of\u00a0functioning\u00a0in\u00a0Russia\u00a0when\u00a0it\u00a0comes\u00a0to\u00a0relations\u00a0with\u00a0foreign\u00a0partners,\u00a0the\u00a0Division\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               generally\u00a0liaise\u00a0with\u00a0their\u00a0Russian\u00a0colleagues\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0number\u00a0of\u00a0issues\u00a0of\u00a0sensitive\u00a0nature,\u00a0as\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               case\u00a0of\u00a0RTI,\u00a0by\u00a0using\u00a0informal\u00a0channels\u00a0expecting\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0formal\u00a0response\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0generally\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               either\u00a0&#8216;nil&#8217;\u00a0or\u00a0&#8216;negative&#8217;.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0stated\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0past\u00a0two\u00a0years\u00a0among\u00a0other\u00a0vital\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               information\u00a0the\u00a0Ministry\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0informally\u00a0trying\u00a0to\u00a0secure\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0to\u00a0placing\u00a0texts\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               of \u00a0 all \u00a0 bilateral \u00a0 inter\u00adgovernmental \u00a0 agreements \u00a0 including \u00a0 the \u00a0 Rupee\u00adRouble \u00a0 Debt \u00a0 Fund\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>               Agreement\u00a0 in\u00a0 the \u00a0public\u00a0 domain\u00a0 in\u00a0India,\u00a0 though\u00a0 such\u00a0 informal \u00a0 communication\u00a0 remain\u00a0<br \/>\n       undocumented\u00a0 though\u00a0they\u00a0 were\u00a0intended\u00a0to\u00a0comply \u00a0with\u00a0the \u00a0RTI\u00a0 queries.\u00a0 \u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0further\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      submitted \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 information, \u00a0 on \u00a0 issues \u00a0 like \u00a0 the \u00a0 bilateral \u00a0 agreements \u00a0 involving \u00a0 a \u00a0 foreign\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Government\u00a0or\u00a0territory,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0a\u00a0convention\u00a0to\u00a0seek\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0that\u00a0foreign\u00a0Government.\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Rupee\u00adRouble\u00a0Debt\u00a0Fund\u00a0is\u00a0an\u00a0inter\u00adgovernmental\u00a0agreement\u00a0that\u00a0binds\u00a0both\u00a0parties\u00a0legally.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      was\u00a0implicit\u00a0that\u00a0contents\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0agreement,\u00a0especially\u00a0since\u00a0they\u00a0are\u00a0financial\u00a0in\u00a0nature,\u00a0shall\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      require\u00a0formal\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0legal\u00a0signatory.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0CPIO\u00a0further\u00a0stated\u00a0in\u00a0his\u00a0letter\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0and\u00a0anticipating\u00a0a\u00a0formal\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0to\u00a0release\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      the \u00a0 text \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Rupee\u00adRouble \u00a0 Debt \u00a0 Fund \u00a0 Agreement, \u00a0 a \u00a0 decision \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 preceded \u00a0 by \u00a0 an\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      informal\u00a0signal,\u00a0the\u00a0Ministry\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0able\u00a0to\u00a0bring\u00a0this\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0notice\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0earlier.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Thus \u00a0 according \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 the \u00a0 intention \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Eurasia \u00a0 Division \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Ministry\u00a0 was\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      actually \u00a0 to \u00a0 divulge \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 as \u00a0 is \u00a0 clear \u00a0 from \u00a0 its \u00a0 anticipation \u00a0 and \u00a0 has \u00a0 been\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      emphasised\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0and\u00a0not\u00a0to\u00a0either\u00a0delay\u00a0or\u00a0undermine\u00a0the\u00a0significance\u00a0of\u00a0complying\u00a0with\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      the\u00a0provisions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act,\u00a02005.\u00a0In\u00a0fact\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0expressed\u00a0their\u00a0sincere\u00a0regret\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      communicating\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0facts.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>\nDecision<\/p>\n<p>7.    During\u00a0the\u00a0hearing,\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0submitted\u00a0that\u00a0formal\u00a0request\u00a0was\u00a0sent\u00a0on\u00a0April\u00a02011\u00a0and\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      no\u00a0response\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0till\u00a0now.<\/p>\n<p>8.    Upon\u00a0 perusal\u00a0 of\u00a0the\u00a0 various\u00a0documents\u00a0 and\u00a0communications\u00a0 exchanged\u00a0so\u00a0far,\u00a0 including\u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      replies\u00a0 dated \u00a0 25.05.2011 \u00a0 and \u00a0 21.06.2011 \u00a0 from \u00a0 the \u00a0 Respondents, \u00a0 it \u00a0 has\u00a0 been \u00a0 noted \u00a0that \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Respondents\u00a0have\u00a0at\u00a0no\u00a0point\u00a0of\u00a0time\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0preceding\u00a0three\u00a0hearings\u00a0spanning\u00a0over\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      last\u00a0two\u00a0years\u00a0have\u00a0mentioned\u00a0that\u00a0information\u00a0sought\u00a0requires\u00a0formal\u00a0approval\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0for\u00a0its\u00a0disclosure.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0recorded\u00a0in\u00a0each\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0three\u00a0earlier\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      decisions \u00a0 dated \u00a0 19.12.2008, \u00a0 12.01.2011 \u00a0 and\u00a0 19.05.2011 \u00a0 that \u00a0 despite \u00a0 opportunities \u00a0 being\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      given\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0MEA,\u00a0vague\u00a0reasons\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0cited\u00a0justifying\u00a0the\u00a0denial\u00a0of\u00a0information.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      It\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0only\u00a0after\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0directed\u00a0the\u00a0Respondent\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0on\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      12.01.2010,\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0\u00a0has\u00a0approached\u00a0the\u00a0DEA\u00a0and\u00a0L&amp;T\u00a0Division\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0seeking\u00a0their\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      consent.\u00a0Even\u00a0at\u00a0that\u00a0time\u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0 \u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0sought.\u00a0The\u00a0MEA\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      has\u00a0therefore\u00a0\u00a0been\u00a0passing\u00a0the\u00a0&#8220;consent\u00a0obtaining&#8221;\u00a0part\u00a0bringing\u00a0one\u00a0agency\u00a0after\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      their\u00a0realm\u00a0of\u00a0consenting\u00a0authority\u00a0in\u00a0complete\u00a0disregard\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0repeated\u00a0directions\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CIC.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      None\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0authorities\/agencies\u00a0in\u00a0India\u00a0seemed\u00a0to\u00a0have\u00a0objected\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0divulging\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0<br \/>\n      in\u00a0this\u00a0case.\u00a0Thereafter, \u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0only\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0fourth\u00a0hearing\u00a0after\u00a0being\u00a0directed\u00a0and\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     Show \u00a0 Cause \u00a0 notice \u00a0 being \u00a0 issued \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 CIC, \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 Respondents \u00a0 came \u00a0 up \u00a0 with \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     argument \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 consent \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Russian \u00a0 government \u00a0 is \u00a0 essential \u00a0 for \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     information\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case,\u00a0although\u00a0they\u00a0were\u00a0not\u00a0able\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0any\u00a0documents\u00a0indicating\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     such \u00a0 necessity \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 consent \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Russian \u00a0 Government \u00a0 before \u00a0 disclosing \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     information \u00a0 neither \u00a0 have \u00a0 they \u00a0 relied \u00a0 on \u00a0 any \u00a0 secrecy\/confidentiality \u00a0 clause \u00a0 between \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     nations. \u00a0 In \u00a0 fact \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0 their \u00a0 own \u00a0 submission \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 letter \u00a0 dated \u00a0 21.06.2011, \u00a0 as \u00a0 noted \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     preceding\u00a0paragraph\u00a0number\u00a06,\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0trying\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0past\u00a0two\u00a0years\u00a0to\u00a0obtain\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     \u00a0the\u00a0consent\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0of\u00a0placing\u00a0among\u00a0others,\u00a0the\u00a0Rupee\u00a0Rouble\u00a0\u00a0Debt<br \/>\n                                                                                       \u00a0  \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     Fund\u00a0Agreement\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0domain\u00a0 in\u00a0India. \u00a0No\u00a0categoric\u00a0denial\u00a0or\u00a0objection\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     Russian\u00a0Government\u00a0so\u00a0far\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0obtained\u00a0or\u00a0placed\u00a0on\u00a0record\u00a0over\u00a0the\u00a0last\u00a0two\u00a0years\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>     thereby\u00a0implying\u00a0the\u00a0neutral\u00a0approach\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian\u00a0Government.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>9.   The\u00a0Commission\u00a0at\u00a0this\u00a0point\u00a0finds\u00a0it\u00a0relevant\u00a0to\u00a0mention\u00a0the\u00a0recent\u00a0judgment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\n     the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Ram\u00a0Jethmalani\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Ors.\u00a0versus\u00a0Union\u00a0of\u00a0India\u00a0wherein\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0black\u00a0<br \/>\n     monies\u00a0of\u00a0Indians\u00a0stashed\u00a0away\u00a0abroad\u00a0were\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0disclosed\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Petitioner.\u00a0Even\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\n     the\u00a0face\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Union\u00a0of\u00a0India&#8217;s\u00a0argument\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0was\u00a0&#8220;&#8230;..proscribed\u00a0from\u00a0disclosing\u00a0such\u00a0names,\u00a0and \u00a0<br \/>\n     other\u00a0documents\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0information\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0such\u00a0bank\u00a0accounts\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0Double\u00a0Taxation\u00a0agreement \u00a0<br \/>\n     with\u00a0 Germany&#8230;..&#8221;,\u00a0 the\u00a0 Hon&#8217;ble\u00a0 Supreme\u00a0 Court \u00a0 upon \u00a0 examining \u00a0the \u00a0 relevant \u00a0 clause\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 said\u00a0<br \/>\n     Double\u00a0Taxation\u00a0Agreement\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0:\u00a0&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;It is disingenuous for the Union of India, under<br \/>\n     these circumstances, to repeatedly claim that it is unable to reveal the documents and<br \/>\n     names as sought by the Petitioners on the ground that the same is proscribed by the<br \/>\n     said agreement. It does not matter that Germany itself may have asked<br \/>\n     India to treat the information shared as being subject to the confidentiality and<br \/>\n     secrecy clause of the double taxation agreement. It is for the Union of India,<br \/>\n     and the courts, in appropriate proceedings, to determine whether such<br \/>\n     information concerns matters that are covered by the double taxation agreement or<br \/>\n     not.&#8221;\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\u00a0was\u00a0further\u00a0discussed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0that<\/p>\n<p>          &#8220;&#8230;..Withholding\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0information\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0from\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0petitioners\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0by\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0State,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0thereby\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0constraining \u00a0<br \/>\n          their\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0freedom\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0speech\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0expression\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0before\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0this\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Court,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0may\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0be\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0premised\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0only\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0on \u00a0<br \/>\n          the\u00a0exceptions\u00a0carved\u00a0out,\u00a0in\u00a0Clause\u00a0(2)\u00a0of\u00a0Article\u00a019,\u00a0&#8220;in\u00a0the\u00a0interests\u00a0of\u00a0sovereignty\u00a0and\u00a0integrity\u00a0of \u00a0<br \/>\n          India,\u00a0security\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0State,\u00a0friendly\u00a0relations\u00a0with\u00a0foreign\u00a0States,\u00a0public\u00a0order,\u00a0decency\u00a0or\u00a0morality,\u00a0or \u00a0<br \/>\n          in\u00a0relation\u00a0to\u00a0contempt\u00a0 \u00a0of\u00a0court,\u00a0defamation\u00a0or\u00a0incitement\u00a0to\u00a0an\u00a0offence&#8221;\u00a0or\u00a0by\u00a0law\u00a0that\u00a0demarcate \u00a0<br \/>\n          exceptions,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0provided\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0that\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0such\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0a\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0law\u00a0comports\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0with\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0enumerated\u00a0grounds\u00a0in\u00a0Clause\u00a0(2)\u00a0of \u00a0<br \/>\n          Article\u00a0\u00a019,\u00a0or\u00a0that\u00a0may\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0for\u00a0elsewhere\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>               71.\u00a0\u00a0It\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0is\u00a0now\u00a0a\u00a0well\u00a0recognized\u00a0proposition\u00a0that\u00a0we\u00a0are\u00a0increasingly\u00a0being\u00a0entwined\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0global \u00a0<br \/>\n          network \u00a0 of \u00a0 events \u00a0 and \u00a0 social \u00a0 action. \u00a0 Considerable \u00a0 care \u00a0 has \u00a0 to \u00a0 be \u00a0 exercised \u00a0 in \u00a0 this \u00a0 process, \u00a0<br \/>\n          particularly\u00a0where\u00a0governments\u00a0which\u00a0come\u00a0into\u00a0being\u00a0on\u00a0account\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0constitutive\u00a0document,\u00a0enter \u00a0<br \/>\n          into\u00a0treaties.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0actions\u00a0of\u00a0governments\u00a0can\u00a0only\u00a0be\u00a0lawful\u00a0when\u00a0exercised\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a0four\u00a0corners \u00a0<br \/>\n           of\u00a0constitutional\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0permissibility.\u00a0No\u00a0treaty\u00a0can\u00a0be\u00a0entered\u00a0into,\u00a0or\u00a0interpreted,\u00a0such\u00a0that\u00a0constitutional \u00a0<br \/>\n          fealty\u00a0is\u00a0derogated\u00a0from\u00a0&#8230;&#8221;\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>      Thus\u00a0while\u00a0the\u00a0Supreme\u00a0Court\u00a0exempted\u00a0the\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0names\u00a0and\u00a0particulars\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      the \u00a0 individuals \u00a0 who \u00a0 held \u00a0 accounts \u00a0 in \u00a0 banks \u00a0 in \u00a0 Liechtenstein, \u00a0 with \u00a0 respect \u00a0 to \u00a0 whom\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      investigations\/enquiries\u00a0are\u00a0still\u00a0in\u00a0progress\u00a0and\u00a0no\u00a0information\u00a0or\u00a0evidence\u00a0of\u00a0wrongdoing\u00a0is\u00a0yet\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      available,\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0names\u00a0and\u00a0documents\u00a0relating\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0accounts\u00a0of\u00a0those\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      individuals\u00a0with\u00a0bank\u00a0accounts\u00a0in\u00a0Liechtenstein,\u00a0as\u00a0revealed\u00a0by\u00a0Germany,\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0of\u00a0whom\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      investigations\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0concluded,\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0disclosed\u00a0either\u00a0partially\u00a0or\u00a0wholly.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>10.   In \u00a0 the \u00a0 light \u00a0 of\u00a0 the \u00a0 findings\u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 above \u00a0 discussed \u00a0 decision \u00a0 wherein \u00a0 the \u00a0 Apex\u00a0 Court \u00a0 directed\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0which\u00a0was\u00a0withheld\u00a0since\u00a0long\u00a0in\u00a0secrecy\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Union\u00a0of\u00a0India\u00a0citing\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      reference\u00a0to\u00a0international\u00a0agreement\u00a0etc.,\u00a0we\u00a0find\u00a0the\u00a0premises\u00a0on\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      instant\u00a0case\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0withheld\u00a0as\u00a0being\u00a0somewhat\u00a0similar\u00a0though\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0neither\u00a0a\u00a0specific\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      agreement\u00a0nor\u00a0any\u00a0clause\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0cited\u00a0for\u00a0such\u00a0secrecy\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0MEA\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      case.\u00a0The\u00a0MEA\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case\u00a0 \u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0brought\u00a0forth\u00a0any\u00a0additional\u00a0and\/or\u00a0substantial\u00a0argument\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      justifying\u00a0the\u00a0non\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0information.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0absence\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0specific\u00a0reason\u00a0it\u00a0seems\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      deliberate\u00a0dilatory\u00a0tactics\u00a0laced\u00a0with\u00a0afterthought\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case\u00a0to\u00a0keep\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0under\u00a0wraps\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      and\u00a0hence\u00a0there\u00a0seems\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0no\u00a0reason\u00a0to\u00a0interfere\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0original\u00a0decision.\u00a0The\u00a0Commission\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      therefore\u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0or\u00a0within\u00a0the\u00a016th\u00a0August\u00a02011.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   With\u00a0regard\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0reply\u00a0given\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Show\u00a0Cause\u00a0notice,\u00a0it\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0noticed\u00a0that\u00a0no\u00a0tangible\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      reason\u00a0was\u00a0given\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0Mr.\u00a0Debraj\u00a0Pradhan\u00a0\u00a0either\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0or\u00a0for\u00a0not\u00a0bringing\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      new\u00a0facts\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0earlier\u00a0except\u00a0that\u00a0&#8220;&#8230;Russia\u00a0follows\u00a0a\u00a0closely\u00a0guarded\u00a0system&#8221;.\u00a0It\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      does\u00a0not\u00a0appear\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0reasonable\u00a0explanation\u00a0despite\u00a0numerous\u00a0opportunities\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Hence,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0imposes\u00a0a\u00a0penalty\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.25,000\/\u00ad\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0then\u00a0CPIO\u00a0for\u00a0misleading\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Commission \u00a0 with \u00a0 incorrect \u00a0 averments \u00a0 from \u00a0 time \u00a0 to \u00a0 time \u00a0 thereby \u00a0 obstructing \u00a0 the \u00a0 furnishing \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      information\u00a0and\u00a0also\u00a0delaying\u00a0the\u00a0response\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Application.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority,\u00a0MEA\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0recover\u00a0a\u00a0sum\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.25,000\/\u00ad\u00a0in\u00a0five\u00a0monthly\u00a0installments\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.\u00a05000\/\u00ad\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      CPIO\u00a0and\u00a0send\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0of\u00a0a\u00a0Demand\u00a0Draft\u00a0drawn\u00a0in\u00a0favour\u00a0of\u00a0PAO,\u00a0CAT\u00a0to\u00a0Shri\u00a0G.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Subramanian, \u00a0 Deputy \u00a0 Registrar, \u00a0 Central \u00a0 Information \u00a0 Commission, \u00a0 Club \u00a0 Building, \u00a0 Old \u00a0 JNU\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      Campus,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0110\u00a0067.\u00a0The\u00a0first\u00a0installment\u00a0should\u00a0reach\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0by\u00a016.08.2011\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>      and\u00a0the\u00a0last\u00a0installment\u00a0by\u00a015.12.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.     The\u00a0Complaint\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0of\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0terms.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                            Pronounced\u00a0in\u00a0open\u00a0Court\u00a0on\u00a011th\u00a0July\u00a02011.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                   (Annapurna\u00a0Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                                          Information\u00a0Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>(G.\u00a0Subramanian)<br \/>\nDeputy\u00a0Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Shri\u00a0P.C.George<br \/>\n      (Poonjar)<br \/>\n      Member,\u00a0Kerala\u00a0Legislative\u00a0Assembly<br \/>\n      Plathottam<br \/>\n      Brattupetta\u00a0&#8211;\u00a02<br \/>\n      Kottayam<br \/>\n      Kerala<\/p>\n<p>2.    The\u00a0Public\u00a0Information\u00a0Officer<br \/>\n      Ministry\u00a0of\u00a0External\u00a0Affairs<br \/>\n      Akbar\u00a0Bhawan<br \/>\n      New\u00a0Delhi<\/p>\n<p>3.    The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority<br \/>\n      Ministry\u00a0of\u00a0External\u00a0Affairs<br \/>\n      South\u00a0Block<br \/>\n      New\u00a0Delhi<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer\u00a0in\u00a0charge,\u00a0NIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission .P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0 at New\u00a0Delhi File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/OK\/C\/2008\/00897 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing :\u00a0\u00a0June\u00a024,\u00a02011 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision :\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a011,\u00a02011 Parties: Applicant Shri\u00a0P.C.\u00a0George (Poonjar) Member,\u00a0Kerala\u00a0Legislative\u00a0Assembly Plathottam Brattupetta\u00a0&#8211;\u00a02 Kottayam Kerala The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0was\u00a0represented\u00a0by\u00a0Shri\u00a0Vinod\u00a0Yadav\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing Respondents The\u00a0Public\u00a0Information\u00a0Officer Ministry\u00a0of\u00a0External\u00a0Affairs Akbar\u00a0Bhawan New\u00a0Delhi Represented\u00a0by: Shri\u00a0Debraj\u00a0Pradhan,\u00a0CPIO Shri\u00a0Suresh\u00a0Babu,\u00a0Director\u00a0(ERS) Information\u00a0Commissioner :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit _________________________________________________________________ Decision\u00a0Notice The\u00a0MEA\u00a0has\u00a0not\u00a0brought\u00a0forth\u00a0any\u00a0additional\u00a0and\/or\u00a0substantial\u00a0argument\u00a0justifying\u00a0the\u00a0non\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0 information\u00a0till\u00a0date.\u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0absence\u00a0of\u00a0any\u00a0specific\u00a0reason\u00a0there\u00a0seems\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0no\u00a0reason\u00a0to\u00a0interfere\u00a0with\u00a0 the\u00a0original\u00a0decision.\u00a0Information\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0or\u00a0within\u00a016th\u00a0August\u00a02011.\u00a0 It\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0observed\u00a0that\u00a0no\u00a0tangible\u00a0reason\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0provided\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0either\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0or\u00a0for\u00a0not\u00a0 bringing \u00a0 the \u00a0 new \u00a0 facts [&hellip;]<\/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-143666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>.P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-26T23:59:22+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T23:59:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3025,\"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\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\",\"name\":\".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T23:59:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-26T23:59:22+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T23:59:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011"},"wordCount":3025,"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\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011","name":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T23:59:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-george-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-11-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":".P.C George vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 11 July, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/143666","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=143666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}