{"id":159418,"date":"2011-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-30T04:35:35","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T23:05:35","slug":"mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 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\n                                     Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG\/12346Adjunct and\n                                                     CIC\/SM\/C\/2011\/000783\/SG\/13313Penalty\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant              :                    Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,\n                                            Sr. Correspondent, Live India,\n                                            Premnath Motors Complex,\n                                            1, Mandir Marg,\n                                            New Delhi- 110001.\n\nRespondent            :                     Mr. Anil Palta\n                                            CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi\n                                            Central Bureau of Investigation\n                                            5th Floor, CBI HQ, Lodhi Road,\n                                            New Delhi\n\nRTI application       :       24\/09 \/2010 (two RTI applications were filed)\nPIO reply             :       18\/10\/2010\nFirst appeal          :       22\/10\/2010\nFAA order             :       19\/11\/2010\nSecond appeal          :      20\/12\/2010\n\nInformation sought:\nRTI application 1:\n<\/pre>\n
I am specifically looking for a copy each of the legal opinions expressed by the agency’s director’s of
\nprosecution concerning the bank fraud cases filed by the agency against Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal.
\nInformation sought: A copy each of the legal opinion (full report) given by the concerned director\/s of
\nprosecution (DOP) after the discharge of Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal from the two cases flied against him by
\nthe agency in connection with alleged bank fraud.\n<\/p>\n
RTI application 2:\n<\/p>\n
I am specifically looking for information on the two bank fraud cases filed by the agency wherein Mr.
\nSant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the agency: however, he was later exonerated by the concerned
\ncourts.\n<\/p>\n
1.      A copy each of the charge sheets wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
\n        agency in connection with the bank fraud case\/s.\n<\/p>\n
2.      A copy each of the judgments delivered by the concerned court\/s that exonerated Mr. Sant Singh
\n        Chatwal in both the cases filed by CBI.\n<\/p>\n
3.      A copy each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor\/s SSPs
\n        DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of the cases
\n        after Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.\n<\/p>\n
4.      A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director\/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after he
\n        was exonerated by the concerned courts.\n<\/p>\n
5.      A copy the final orders passed\/recommendations made by the former and present directors CBI in
\n        connection with either of the cases wherein Mr. Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused by the
\n        agency.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              Page 1 of 8<\/span><\/p>\n
 PIO’s reply:\n<\/p>\n
For both RTI applications:\n<\/p>\n
2. With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that. apart from the two cases which
\nwere disposed off, two more cases, which are inter connected with the cases already disposed off, are
\npending under trial before the same court. Hence, the information cannot be supplied to you and
\nexemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act is claimed.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for First appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Wrong denial of information.\n<\/p>\n
FAA order:\n<\/p>\n
The undersigned upholds the grounds on which CPIO, BS&FC, CBI, New Delhi denied to provide the
\ninformation sought by the appellant as it falls u\/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act,2005 because two more cases which
\nare connected with the already disposed of ones are pending trial before the same court.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for Second appeal:\n<\/p>\n
The case is very old and admittedly there is no investigation underway. It is clear from the response of the
\nCPIO, BS&FC. CBI also, “With regard to information sought under reference, it is informed that, apart
\nfrom the two cases which were disposed off, two more cases, which are interconnected with the cases
\nalready disposed off, are pending under trial before the same court. Hence the information can not be
\nsupplied to you and exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act is claimed.” It reads ‘two more
\ncases.., are pending under trial before the same court.” It did not say that the investigation is under way.
\nA charge sheet by an investigative agency is a public document and same is true with orders of a court of
\nlaw. I believe, if CBI wanted to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act and not suppress the information
\nconcerning a high profile NRI hotelier, ideally it should have provided me the copies of charge sheets and
\ncourt orders regarding both the cases without any delay.\n<\/p>\n
In this context, it is my view, that the agency has deliberately and wrong invoked the section 8 (1) h of the
\nRTI Act as a pretext to deny me the information about a high profile non resident Indian.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 11 May 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi,
\nRespondent: Mr. S. V. Raman, Superintendent of Police on behalf of Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & HOB of
\n               BS&FC Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemptions under Section 8(1)(h) of the
\nRTI Act. A very peculiar claim was made that though the two cases for which information was being
\nsought have been discharged, there are two other fraud cases which are being pursued in which some of
\nthe Bank Officers are the same. No evidence has been given as to how giving the information would
\nimpede the prosecution of offenders. Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of, “information
\nwhich would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.” No claim
\nhas been made that any investigation is continuing, and the fact that some bank officers are being
\nprosecuted in two other matters cannot justify refusal to give information in the matters relating to Mr.
\nSant Singh Chatwal. The Respondent states that some of the documents relied in both the case are the
\nsame. The Appellant has not sought documents relating to the case directly. The respondent was asked if
\ndocuments sought at query-01 and 02 were not public documents. The Respondent agrees that what has
\nbeen sought in query-01 & 02 are public documents.\n<\/p>\n
Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and denial of information has to be based on
\ndefinite reasons which can be explained.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Page 2 of 8<\/span><\/p>\n
 Justice Ravindra Bhat has held in Bhagatsingh vs. CIC WP (c ) no. 3114\/2007- “13. Access to
\ninformation, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section
\n8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be
\ninterpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
\ninformation is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders.
\nIt is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
\ninformation; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release
\nof such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the
\nopinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this
\nconsideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands
\nfor information.\n<\/p>\n
14. A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like the Act, should receive a liberal
\ninterpretation. The contextual background and history of the Act is such that the exemptions, outlined in
\nSection 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to provide information, constitute restrictions on
\nthe exercise of the rights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to be construed in
\ntheir terms; there is some authority supporting this view ( See Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> 2005 (2)
\nSCC 201; B. R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy<\/a>
\n1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a different approach would result in narrowing the rights and approving a
\njudicially mandated class of restriction on the rights under the Act, which is unwarranted.”\n<\/p>\n
Frivolously refusing information by claiming one of the 10 exemptions in Section 8(1) without giving
\nexplanation is an unwarranted denial of citizens’ fundamental right. No proper explanation has been given
\nfor denying the information.”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 11 May 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     “The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before
\n30 May 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of denying the information by the PIO without any justification
\nin the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. It
\nappears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being
\nissued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
\nnot be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO Mr. Anil Palta will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 June 2011
\nat 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
\nas mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
\nappellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS&FC Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
        “The respondent has given a written submission in which he admits that denying the charge sheet
\nand the copies of the judgment was an error of judgment and this information has now been provided to
\nthe Appellant. The Appellant acknowledges that he received these. As regards the following three:\n<\/p>\n
    (i) “A copy of each of the recommendations made by the agency’s then Special Public Prosecutor\/s,
\n           SSPs, DIGs and any other RBI official (on deputation with the agency) dealing with either of
\n           the cases after Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was exonerated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                                 Page 3 of 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    (ii)     A copy of the legal opinion of the then Director\/s of Prosecution (DoP) in both the cases after
\n            he was exonerated by the concerned court\/s.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)  A cop of the final orders passed\/recommendations made by the former and present Directors of
\n            CBI in connection with either of the cases wherein Shri Sant Singh Chatwal was made accused
\n            by the agency.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The respondent states that CBI intends challenging the decision of the Commission in a writ before the
\nHigh Court. The Commission sought the view of the respondent on whether a statutory authority’s order
\ncould be defied without the valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission would like
\nCBI to give its opinion on this matter before it takes a decision. It is felt that when public authorities or
\ncitizens do not implement orders given by the Statutory Authority without obtaining a stay as per the law
\nthis could create a very unhealthy situation. The respondent states that he would like to consult the
\nprosecution cell of CBI before answering the query of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has given his submissions on 06\/06\/2011 in which he has stated that the CBI has not
\nfollowed the decision of the Commission. The appellant has pointed out the following:\n<\/p>\n
    1-     As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act (which was mentioned in the order given by the
\n           Commission) the PIO should have provided the information free of cost since the information
\n           was being provided after the period of 30 days. Instead he was asked to pay Rs.286\/- to get
\n           part of the information which CBI was willing to give.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2-     The Appellant states that he believes that since there was no stay on the order of the
\n           Commission the CBI should have implemented.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3-     The Appellant believes that there must be some pressure on CBI because of which the
\n           Commission’s order was not implemented.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The respondent states that once the information is parted with CBI would not be able to retrieve it and
\nCBI believes that the decision of the Commission must be challenged in a writ since the information is
\ncovered under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission is adjourning the matter until 29 June 2011. The PIO will then present his argument on
\nwhether the actions of CBI in not implementing the order is legally justifiable. The matter will be held on
\n29 June 2011 at 04.30PM.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision dated 09 June 2011:\n<\/p>\n
 “The PIO will refund the amount of Rs.286\/- charged illegally, to the Appellant before 15 June 2011.
\nThe Commission also directs the PIO Mr. Anil Palta to present himself before the Commission on
\n29 June 2011 at 04.30PM to present his argument before the Commission.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 29 June 2011:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS & FC, CBI.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant gave written submissions to the Commission. The Appellant has submitted inter alia that
\nhe had filed two RTI applications (including the one in the instant matter) seeking certain information. He
\nwas a given a reply denying the information sought in both applications. However, the PIO clarified only
\nsubsequently that the said reply was in response to both RTI applications. The Appellant has also
\nsubmitted that the PIO had defied the Commission’s order dated 11\/05\/2011 by not fully complying with
\nthe same and providing incomplete information vide letter dated 30\/05\/2011. The Appellant further
\nargued that the PIO returned the sum of Rs. 286 by cash to his cousin instead of cheque, as verbally
\ninstructed by the Commission at the hearing held on 09\/06\/2011. Moreover, he was not provided a copy
\nof any document which showed that the amount of Rs. 286 given to him was booked as a refund by CBI.
\nIn view of the same, the Commission hereby directs Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO to provide an attested
\n                                                                                                 Page 4 of 8<\/span>
\n photocopy of the document\/ voucher showing that the payment of Rs. 286 in cash to the Appellant
\nwas booked as a refund. This should be sent to the Appellant before 25 July 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO submitted in writing to the Commission that a Writ Petition bearing number 4506 of 2011 had
\nbeen filed in Delhi High Court in the instant matter, praying for stay\/ setting aside the Commission’s order
\ndated 11\/05\/2011. The matter was heard on 29\/06\/2011 and M. L. Mehta, J. stayed the operation of the
\norder dated 11\/05\/2011 and listed the matter for 28\/07\/2011 for further hearing. The Commission asked
\nthe PIO whether the Commission’s order,- which is a statutory authority,- could be defied without a valid
\nstay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission asked the PIO if he had any answer to this
\nquery which had been posed to him during the hearing on 09\/06\/2011. The Commission also asked the
\nPIO why it should not penalize him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for defying the order of the
\nCommission to provide information, from 01\/06\/2011 to 28\/06\/2011 without any legally valid stay on the
\nCommission’s order.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO stated that the Respondent- public authority had intended to file a writ petition challenging the
\norder of the Commission. However, due to departmental procedures and administrative hurdles\/
\nexigencies, the writ petition could not be filed (and consequently, a stay order could not be obtained)
\nbefore the compliance date mentioned in the Commission’s order. The PIO also stated that the
\nCommission should give a longer compliance date in its orders keeping departmental requirements and
\nadministrative hurdles\/ exigencies in mind. If the same would have been done in the instant case, it is
\nlikely the Respondent- public authority would have been able to obtain a stay on the Commission’s order.\n<\/p>\n
It is pertinent to mention that the Commission received a letter dated 06\/06\/2011 from the Appellant
\nalleging that the order of the Commission dated 11\/05\/2011 had not been complied with and the
\ninformation provided by the PIO vide letter dated 30\/05\/2011 was incomplete. The Commission registered
\nthe same as a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act bearing Complaint No.
\nCIC\/SM\/C\/2011\/000783\/SG. The Commission decided to initiate an enquiry under Section 18(2) of the
\nRTI Act and by notice dated 23\/06\/2011 directed the PIO to appear before the Commission on
\n29\/06\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
After hearing the arguments and perusing the submissions of the parties, the Commission reserved the
\norder in CIC\/SM\/C\/2011\/000783\/SG at the hearing held on 29\/06\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission was provided a copy of the stay order dated 29\/06\/2011 on 05\/07\/2011. On perusal of
\nthe same, the Commission noted that its order dated 11\/05\/2011 was stayed till the next date of hearing. In
\nview of the same, the Commission is not taking any further action in Appeal No.
\nCIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG.\n<\/p>\n
Decision announced in Complaint CIC\/SM\/C\/2011\/000783\/SG on July 7, 2011:\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states:\n<\/p>\n
   “20. Penalties.- Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
\n   Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
\n   opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
\n   the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
\n   information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
\n   section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
\n   incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
\n   request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of
\n   two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so
\n   however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                Page 5 of 8<\/span><\/p>\n
        Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer,
\n   as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
\n   imposed on him:\n<\/p>\n
       Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be
\n   on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\n   may be.”\n<\/p>\n
From a plain reading of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, it appears that the Commission, at the time of
\ndeciding any Complaint or Appeal, must impose a penalty in the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.\n3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n
       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request.\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the phrase, “without reasonable cause”.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, if complete information is not furnished without any reasonable cause, the Commission, at the
\ntime of deciding any Complaint or Appeal is duty bound to levy a penalty at the rate of Rs. 250 each day
\ntill the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there is no reasonable cause for the
\ndelay in providing the information, it has to impose a penalty at the rate specified in Section 20(1) of the
\nRTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. This principle has been relied on by Ravindra Bhat,
\nJ. of the High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman v. CIC in C.W.P. 3845 of 2007 decided on 28\/04\/2009.
\nMoreover, as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO shall have to discharge the burden of proving that
\nhe acted reasonably and diligently.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, the order of the Commission dated 11\/05\/2011 clearly stipulated the date i.e.
\n30\/05\/2011 within which the complete information was required to be provided to the Complainant.
\nHowever, despite its clear order, the Commission noted that the PIO did not provide the complete
\ninformation to the Appellant within the said date. Stay on the Commission’s order dated 11\/05\/2011 was
\nobtained only on 29\/06\/2011. Given the same, it prima facie appears that the PIO has flouted the order of
\nthe Commission and not provided the information from the period 01\/06\/2011 to 28\/06\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
As mentioned above, the Commission asked the PIO whether the order of a statutory authority could be
\ndefied without a valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. The Commission had raised the same
\nissue with the PIO at the hearing held on 09\/06\/2011. The PIO had no written submissions in this matter.
\nHe stated that due to departmental procedures and administrative hurdles\/ exigencies, the writ petition
\ncould not be filed (and consequently, a stay order could not be obtained) before the compliance date
\nmentioned in the Commission’s order. The PIO also argued that he could not be held responsible for the
\nprocedures and delays involved in getting the requisite permissions to file a writ petition in the High
\nCourt. He submitted that the Commission should give a longer compliance date in its orders keeping
\ndepartmental requirements and administrative hurdles\/ exigencies in mind. If the same would have been
\ndone in the instant case, it is likely the Respondent- public authority would have been able to obtain a stay
\non the Commission’s order. The PIO felt that once he informed the Commission at the hearing held on
\n09\/06\/2011 that the Respondent- public authority intended to challenge the decision, the Commission
\nmust not insist on its order being implemented.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission is not satisfied with the submissions of the PIO. The PIO is required to comply with the
\norder of the Commission, unless a stay has been obtained on such order within the time limit mentioned in
\nthe order. Departmental procedures and administrative hurdles\/ exigencies cannot be used as an excuse for
\ndisobeying the order of a statutory authority and consequently denying the citizen’s fundamental right to
\ninformation. At the very least the PIO should have approached the Commission before 30\/05\/2011 and
\n                                                                                                 Page 6 of 8<\/span>
\n requested for an extension in time giving reasons. Even at the hearing held on 09\/06\/2011, the PIO was
\ngiven additional time to appear again on 29\/06\/2011 to give legal arguments as to whether the order of a
\nstatutory authority could be defied without a valid stay obtained from the appropriate forum. At the
\nhearing held on 29\/06\/2011, the PIO merely referred to the stay order and did not give any justification for
\nnot complying with the order of the Commission before 30\/05\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
In this regard, the Commission would like to place reliance on certain pronouncements of the Supreme
\nCourt of India. In Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. Appeal (Civil) No.<\/a> 5024 of 2000, the
\nSupreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 24\/08\/2004 observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules
\n   or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach to the
\n   Court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or
\n   wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has
\n   to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the Court would render the party liable for contempt. While
\n   dealing with an application for contempt the Court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-
\n   compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or
\n   what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or
\n   otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be
\n   exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt
\n   proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.” (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
Further, in Prakash Narain Sharma v. Burma Shell Cooperative Housing AIR<\/a> 2002 SC 3062, the
\nSupreme Court of India has observed that a judicial order, not invalid on its face, must be given effect
\nentailing all consequences, till it is declared void in a duly constituted judicial proceedings. Reliance may
\nalso be placed on the observations of S.N. Variava, J. in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir
\nSingh<\/a> (2004)- (002)- CPJ- 0012- SC wherein he stated that unless there is a stay obtained from a higher
\nforum, the mere fact of filing an appeal or revision will not entitle a person who is required to pay the
\npenalty to not comply with the order of the lower forum. Even though the person may have filed an appeal
\nor revision, if no stay is obtained or if stay is refused, the order must be complied with. In such cases, the
\nhigher forum should, before entertaining such appeal or revision, ensure that the order of the lower forum
\nis first complied with. In the present case, the PIO had not even filed for a stay of the Commission’s order.\n<\/p>\n
From the PIO’s submissions, it appears that a statutory body such as the Commission is required to
\nprovide a compliance date long enough so that the PIO can obtain a stay on the Commission’s order. This
\nsubmission is not only unreasonable but also appears to be preposterous. Given that the Parliament itself
\nmandated that information in relation to a RTI application must be provided within 30 days, it would be
\nextremely absurd to expect the Commission to provide a compliance date of over 30 days. This is more so
\nas the Commission is a second appellate authority which decides matters where delay in providing
\ninformation has already ensued. The contention of the PIO is not acceptable to the Commission. It is
\ncompletely wrong to expect that all statutory and judicial orders must take into account the delays of
\nvarious organizations in deciding whether they wish to follow an order or not. All agencies have to gear
\nthemselves to challenge orders within the time in which an order has to implemented. If they fail to obtain
\na vacation or stay on a legally valid order, they must comply.\n<\/p>\n
If individuals or organizations do not follow orders of statutory authorities, it would lead to complete
\nanarchy. The law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, as described above, is the law of the land and
\nmust be abided by all. The CBI is not above this law and in the absence of a stay, should have complied
\nwith the order of the Commission. Given that CBI is the premier investigation and law enforcement
\nagency of the country, it is certainly expected of its officers to behave responsibly and abide by the
\nmandate laid down by the Supreme Court of India. This may be contrasted to a situation when an order is
\npromulgated under Section 144 of the IPC prohibiting citizens from demonstrating at Jantar Mantar or
\n                                                                                                  Page 7 of 8<\/span>
\n Ram Lila Grounds. In such a situation the citizens are expected to abide by this and bear the
\nconsequences, if they fail to do so. They cannot disobey the order on the basis that a writ petition is
\nproposed to be filed before the appropriate forum. If citizens were to disobey the prohibitory orders they
\nwould be arrested. This elementary principle of abiding by orders which have been given by statutory
\nauthorities or Courts cannot be defied by anyone. Just as Citizens are expected to follow this, government
\nagencies and their officers are equally bound to abide by all orders which have the sanction of law.
\nWithout this discipline, no rule of law can prevail. And if a police agency cannot follow this simple
\nprinciple, it loses the moral authority to ask citizens to abide by its orders.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO’s action is in clear violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The stay
\nhas been obtained on the order of the Commission dated 11\/05\/2011 only on 29\/06\/2011, whereas the PIO
\nwas required to comply with the order of the Commission before 30\/05\/2010. Since the PIO has failed to
\ncomply with the order of the Commission, without a valid stay, he is liable to be penalized under Section
\n20(1) of the RTI Act for the period between 01\/06\/2011 to 28\/06\/2011. Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of
\nBS & FC, CBI has given no reasonable cause for not providing information for 28 days, before a valid
\nstay was obtained on the Commission’s order. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Anil
\nPalta, CPIO & DIG of BS & FC, CBI for not providing the information from 01\/06\/2011 to 28\/06\/2011,
\ni.e. for a period of 28 days, the Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. Anil Palta, CPIO & DIG of BS &
\nFC, CBI under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of Rs. 250 per day of delay, i.e. 28 X 250 = Rs.
\n7000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The Director, CBI is directed to recover the amount of Rs.\u00a07,000\/- from the salary of Mr.
\nAnil Palta and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the
\nPay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj
\nK.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information
\nCommission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may
\nbe deducted at the rate of Rs.\u00a03,500\/- per month every month from the salary of Mr. Anil
\nPalta and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total amount
\nof Rs.\u00a07,000\/- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.\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 of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                      Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                                    July 7, 2011<\/p>\n
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SG)<\/p>\n
CC:       Mr. Pankaj K. P. Shreyaskar,
\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary,
\n          Central Information Commission,
\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
\n          New Delhi – 110066<\/p>\n
          Director, CBI,
\n          5th Floor, CBI HQ,
\n          Lodhi Road, New Delhi<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                     Page 8 of 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000293\/SG\/12346Adjunct and CIC\/SM\/C\/2011\/000783\/SG\/13313Penalty Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Krishnanand Tripathi, Sr. Correspondent, Live India, Premnath Motors Complex, 1, Mandir Marg, New […]<\/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-159418","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 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-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-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=\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-29T23:05:35+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=\"24 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-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T23:05:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4702,\"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-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T23:05:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 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:\\\/\\\/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.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 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-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-29T23:05:35+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T23:05:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011"},"wordCount":4702,"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-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011","name":"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T23:05:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-krishnanand-tripathi-vs-cbi-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Krishnanand Tripathi vs Cbi on 7 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:\/\/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\/159418","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=159418"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159418\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159418"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159418"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159418"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}