{"id":173915,"date":"2010-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-04T18:17:15","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T12:47:15","slug":"shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010<\/div>\n
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n            Appeal No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00707 dated 29.05.2008\n               Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nPARTIES TO THE CASE:\n\n\nAppellant              :    Shri P.P. Rajeev\n\nPublic Authority :          Cochin Port Trust\n\nDate of Decision :          22.02.2010\n\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
 OF THE CASE:\n<\/p>\n
       The origins of this second-appeal lie in the appellant’s
\nRTI-application dated 05.01.2008 comprising the following request:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Copies       of the Statement of Assets filed by the Class I & II
\n       Officers of Dock Labour Division of Traffic Department of Cochin
\n       Port Trust, Cochin \u23af for the calendar year 2006 & 2007 (2
\n       years).”<\/p>\n
2.     CPIO, Cochin Port Trust, through his reply dated 23.01.2008,
\ndeclined to disclose the information as, according to him, these were
\npersonal information of third-parties.\n<\/p>\n
3.     Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the CPIO, in the
\nprocess of which he quoted CIC decision in Appeal No.CIC\/MA\/A\/
\n2007\/00654 dated 31.12.2007 in Shiv Bali Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar
\nNigam Limited, to say that appellant did not have an automatic right to
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                              Page 1 of 17<\/span>
\n be revealed the information he had sought and that there was no public
\ninterest cited by him that would warrant disclosure of admittedly
\npersonal information of third-parties. Both the CPIO and the Appellate
\nAuthority were apparently referring to the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of
\nthe RTI Act in coming to the decision which they did in this case.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Appellant, through his second-appeal petition dated 10.05.2008,
\nhas questioned the respondents’ (the Appellate Authority’s and the
\nCPIO’s) reasoning and stated that not only the requested information
\ndoes not qualify to be personal information, it ought to be disclosed
\neven otherwise in public interest.\n<\/p>\n
5.     This second-appeal first came up for hearing on 25.11.2008
\nbefore the Single Bench of Shri A.N.Tiwari, Central Information
\nCommissioner, who referred the matter to the Chief Information
\nCommissioner for constituting a larger Bench of the Commission to hear
\nthe matter as, according to him, the issues involved were important
\nwith wider implications.       Accordingly, a Division Bench consisting of
\nthe   Central    Information    Commissioners,   Shri   A.N.   Tiwari   and
\nShri M.L. Sharma was constituted.        The Bench heard the matter on
\n09.01.2009, when the Commission invited the views of the Cabinet
\nSecretary, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Comptroller & Auditor
\nGeneral of India, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministries of
\nHome Affairs, External Affairs and Defence as well as Central Boards of
\nDirect Taxes and Excise & Customs and the Railway Board, to enable the
\nCommission come to a conclusion regarding whether property returns of
\npublic servants needed to be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                               Page 2 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 6.     The gist of the responses received from some of the Cadre
\nControlling Departments is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No.    Department                           Gist of the Response\n  1.   Cabinet Secretariat    Property Returns should not to be disclosed. The\n<\/pre>\n
                              financial worth of Govt. employee is likely to be
\n                              misused as it may reach to wrong hands and may result
\n                              in family disputes, social problems, property disputes,
\n                              even extortion \/ abduction for money, etc.<\/p>\n
  2.    Central Vigilance CIC may decide the matter in accordance with the
\n        Commission        provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
  3.    Comptroller     & Property Returns are covered under Section 8(1)(j) read
\n        Auditor General of with Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The provisions of
\n        India              Section 11(1) would also be attracted.\n<\/p>\n
  4.    Ministry of Home Property Returns should not to be disclosed under RTI
\n        Affairs          provisions as it would serve very little public purpose
\n                         than adverse repercussion like settling scores \/ harm to
\n                         concerned Government employee.\n<\/p>\n
  5.    Ministry of External Property Returns are classified documents and should
\n        Affairs              be barred under Section 8(1)(j). Disclosure should not
\n                             be made in a routine manner. However, in cases where
\n                             it is deemed necessary to disclose the property returns
\n                             under RTI Act, it is proposed to follow the provisions of
\n                             Section 11 of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
  6.    Ministry of Defence   Details furnished in property returns are of personal
\n                              nature divulging of which are certainly not in public or
\n                              personal interest. Divulging of such information is
\n                              certainly an impingement on the privacy and security
\n                              of the person concerned. It would, therefore, not at
\n                              all be in the interest of public or otherwise to allow
\n                              divulgence of such information.\n<\/p>\n
  7.    Railway Board         Disclosure of property returns amounts to disclosure of
\n                              personal information in respect of Railway servant
\n                              concerned, which is not permissible under sub-section\n<\/p>\n
                              (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The disclosure of
\n                              such personal information is also not expected to serve
\n                              any public interest. On the contrary, it may lead to
\n                              some undesirable situations such as family disputes,
\n                              extortion \/ kidnapping for money, etc.<\/p>\n
  8.    Central Board of Property Returns filed annually is not a public
\n        Excise & Customs document and neither is the information so furnished
\n                         accessible to any other employee, except the
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                       Page 3 of 17<\/span>
\n                              administration; the information is personal in nature
\n                             and, therefore, may not be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n
  9.    Central Board    of CBDT is fully in support to bring sunlight in the working
\n        Direct Taxes        of Govt. of India to act as disinfectant but it should be
\n                            applicable to all Departments. The senior most officers
\n                            should act as role models to first disclose their assets
\n                            on the website. The information about the assets of all
\n                            the officers of the rank of Additional Secretary and
\n                            above should be on the net. However this should be
\n                            applicable to all Departments and not only to the
\n                            Income Tax Department alone.\n<\/p>\n
 10.    Department       of A communication from Shri R.K. Girdhar, Under
\n        Personnel        & Secretary, DoPT dated 06.05.2009 had been received,
\n        Training            in which it has been mentioned that the matter was
\n                            being examined in consultation with Ministry of Law &
\n                            Justice. However, no formal views have yet been
\n                            received from their end.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Thereafter, the Commission referred the matter, along with
\ncomments of the Cadre Controlling Departments, to the Cabinet
\nSecretary for him to obtain the considered view of the Government.
\nCommission had on the basis of averments before it summarized the
\npros and cons of disclosing property-related information of public
\nemployees as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “5.    In favour of disclosing the Property Returns \/ Assets details of
\n       public servants, the following points were urged:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (i)     Such disclosures would promote honesty and deter those
\n                      prone to conceal their assets.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii)    It will improve the image of public administration and
\n                      will contribute to good governance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (iii)   It will check the tendency towards corruption, especially
\n                      among those who are risk-takers \u23af believing that the
\n                      risk of concealing incomes and assets was so minimal that
\n                      it was worth taking.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                      Page 4 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iv)    The honest public employee has no fears if his asset
\n                      details are brought out into the public domain while the
\n                      hesitancy of the dishonest servants cannot be a basis for
\n                      not disclosing asset details.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (v)     There is no reason why the asset details of public
\n                      employees should be withheld from disclosure whereas
\n                      Members of Parliament and State Legislatures and those
\n                      contesting in Elections are required to make public the
\n                      details of their assets, including cash holdings, jewellery,
\n                      etc.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (vi)    The theory of harm that may be caused to the civil
\n                      servants and public employees by busybodies and
\n                      blackmailers who may colourably use the disclosed assets-
\n                      related information, is far too exaggerated to merit
\n                      consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (vii)   Disclosure of assets of civil servants in the context of
\n                      endemic and embedded corruption is undoubtedly in
\n                      public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       6.    The arguments urged against its disclosure are summarized
\n       below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (i)     Public disclosure of civil servants’ assets details can be a
\n                      grist to rumour-mills and shall be an instrument in the
\n                      hands of blackmailers and busybodies to harass,
\n                      intimidate and browbeat the civil servants, using the
\n                      disclosed information about assets. The civil servants may
\n                      eventually come out unscathed but the trauma in the
\n                      interim can be demoralizing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (ii)    No matter what valuation a civil servant puts on his
\n                      assets, or no matter what the actual value of the assets
\n                      be, it could be questioned for its correctness and baseless
\n                      charges against him levelled for holding assets
\n                      disproportionate to his known income. The mocking
\n                      media analyses and publicity, innuendoes and snide
\n                      remarks may reduce even the most honest civil servant to
\n                      a mental wreck.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (iii)   The comparison between the political class, MPs, MLAs
\n                      and those contesting in Elections on the one hand and the
\n                      civil servants on the other is misconceived. The civil
\n                      servants are required to take permission of the
\n                      competent authority for every transaction in asset
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                     Page 5 of 17<\/span>
\n                      transfers \/ acquisition. They are also required to inform
\n                     higher authorities about transactions above certain
\n                     monetary levels. These are done in the usual course of
\n                     business throughout the civil servant’s service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The Property Returns are very often a culmination of
\n                     these permissions or disclosures which he regularly makes
\n                     to the public authority. No such compulsion applies to
\n                     public figures such as MPs, MLAs and those contesting in
\n                     Elections.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (iv)   Assets disclosure may bring employees to the attention of
\n                     lawless elements and can expose these employees and
\n                     their families to physical risk. This was especially true of
\n                     disturbed areas where armed groups are known to
\n                     intimidate Government employees to extort money.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.     During the hearing, the point generally made on behalf of the
\n       Cadre Controlling Authorities was that unless there was an identifiable
\n       public interest in disclosing the Property Returns, there was merit in
\n       maintaining its confidentiality.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       8.    It was their view that the practice adopted in the Western
\n       Countries, where civil servants’ Property Returns were all disclosed,
\n       could not be adopted wholesale in India, given the conditions here,
\n       where society was deeply fractured and civil servants faced far greater
\n       pressures and dangers than their Western counterparts.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9.     The representatives of the Cadre Controlling Authorities,
\n       however, were not unanimous as to why making disclosure of
\n       asset-details of public servants automatic be so harmful that it should
\n       remain barred under the Official Secrets Act. This needs further
\n       reflection in the light of experience at all levels in the Government.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.      Cabinet Secretariat, vide its communication dated 25.11.2009,
\nintimated to the Commission the considered view of the Government,
\nwhich, inter-alia, read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “The meeting of the Committee of Secretaries was held under
\n       the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary on 9.11.2009 to
\n       consider the matter relating to disclosure of assets of civil
\n       servants and public employees under the RTI Act in which the
\n       following decisions were taken viz.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                    Page 6 of 17<\/span>
\n        (1)    The law in the matter under discussion is clearly laid down
\n              by section 8(1), read with section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005
\n              and it is within the domain of the CPIO of each department
\n              or office to take a decision on the RTI applications received
\n              by him.”\n<\/p>\n
9.     Matter was again heard by the Division Bench on 26.11.2009 in
\nthe presence of the representatives of the Cadre Controlling
\nDepartments, including the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT).
\nAppellant was called, and was absent.\n<\/p>\n
10.    The following issues were posed:-\n<\/p>\n
       1.    (A)     Do Property Returns filed by employees before public
\n                     authorities qualify to be personal information within
\n                     the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (B)     Is there a commitment by the public authority to
\n                     keep these returns confidential except when required
\n                     under specified conditions to be disclosed, which
\n                     brings the matter within Section 11(1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.     If Property Returns are categorized as personal information,
\n              what conditions are to be satisfied before their disclosure
\n              can be authorized?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.    As regards Sl.No.1 of the issues, it is instructive to refer to the
\nmeaning of the word ‘personal’ occurring in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
\nAct. This Section read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                Page 7 of 17<\/span>
\n        Section 8(1)(j):\n<\/p>\n
       “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
\n       relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted
\n       invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer
\n       or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is
\n       satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
\n       Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State
\n       Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”\n<\/p>\n
12.    The Oxford Reference Dictionary defines ‘personal’ as an
\nadjective “having to do with or belonging to a particular person; done
\nby a particular person rather than someone else.”\n<\/p>\n
13.    According to the Law Lexicon by T. Ramanatha Iyer, the word
\n‘personal’ means “pertaining to the person”; “of or relating to a
\nparticular person [S.81, CPC]”; “exclusively for a given individual
\n[S.171F, IPC]”; “relating to the person or body [S.2(P), Gold (Control)
\nAct]”; “relating to an individual, his character, conduct, motives or
\nprivate affairs [S.60(1), prov.(A), CPC]”.\n<\/p>\n
14.    It follows from it that the expression ‘personal’ when occurring in
\na statute or a legal document would refer to all such material which
\npertains to, relates to, belongs to, or a person or an individual.\n<\/p>\n
15.    The RTI Act uses the word ‘personal’ in the context of a person to
\nwhom the information might relate (as in Section 8(1)(j)).\n<\/p>\n
16.    Section 8(1)(j) contains two expressions ‘personal’ and ‘private’
\nin a subtly differentiated way. While this Section grants exemption to
\nall personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to
\nany public activity or interest; personal information disclosure of which
\nwould cause invasion of privacy is also barred from disclosure except in
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                                 Page 8 of 17<\/span>
\n public interest.     It, therefore, acknowledges that within a broad
\ncategory of “personal information”, a certain class of information may
\ncause invasion of privacy if disclosed and hence should be exempted
\nexcept of course in the interest of an acknowledged public interest.
\nOutside this narrow category of private information, there remains a
\nlarge expanse of personal information which may find its way into the
\nhands of the public authority under a variety of statutes, rules or
\nregulations.    According to the wordings of this Section, once it is
\nestablished that a certain category of information is personal, the only
\nreason for its disclosure should be it serving public interest. Therefore,
\npublic interest is an essential precondition for disclosure of a category
\nof information recognized and designated as personal.\n<\/p>\n
17.    Section 11(1) refers to disclosure of “any information or record,
\nor part thereof…… which relates to or has been supplied by a third-
\nparty and has been treated as confidential by that third-party…”.
\nThis Section enjoins that such third-parties should be necessarily
\nconsulted and their “submission… shall be kept in view while taking a
\ndecision about disclosure of information…”. Disclosure in all such cases
\ncan be allowed “if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in
\nimportance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third-
\nparty.”\n<\/p>\n
18.    In Section 8(1)(j), public interest allows overriding of the
\nexemption to disclosure of personal information.        In Section 11(1),
\npublic interest is to be evaluated vis-\u00e0-vis the injury any disclosure of
\ninformation might cause to the interest of the third-party.      In other
\nwords, if a public authority holds a set of personal information of a
\nthird-party in confidence, that third-party can argue against its<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                              Page 9 of 17<\/span>
\n disclosure even if disclosure is merited on grounds of public interest,
\nciting the injury such disclosure would cause to him or to his interests.
\nIt is for the CPIO and the Appellate Authority to decide whether the
\npossibility of the injury to the interest of the third-party in the
\ndisclosure of the information is superseded by the larger public interest
\nsuch disclosure would serve. It implies that should it be warranted by
\nlarger public interest, the possible injury to the third-party by the
\ndisclosure of personal information, could be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
19.    Any disclosure of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and
\ninformation of third-party held confidentially by a public authority, is to
\nbe authorized only after a CPIO carefully weighs the pros and cons of
\npublic interest (as also any injury to the third-party) before taking a
\ndecision about whether to disclose a given set of personal and \/ or
\nthird-party information partly or fully.\n<\/p>\n
20.    From the wordings of these two Sections, it can be fairly inferred
\nthat while the RTI Act uses ‘public interest’ as generally the reason for
\noverriding the exemptions which might apply to an information, in the
\nmatter of personal information, it uses ‘public interest’ as the essential
\nprecondition which needs to be satisfied before CPIO authorizes
\ndisclosure of this category of information. The evaluation of disclosure
\nof a confidential third-party information has been made even more
\nstringent in Section 11(1) where a CPIO is also to assess imperatives of
\npublic interest vis-\u00e0-vis possible injury to a protected interest before
\ndeciding on the disclosure of a confidential-third-party-information.\n<\/p>\n
21.    The signal provided in the Act, therefore, is that extra care and
\ncaution should be exercised before an acknowledgedly personal
\ninformation or a third-party information is authorized to be disclosed.
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                             Page 10 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 22.    That brings up the question, whether Property or Assets Returns
\nor statements filed by public servants qualified to be their personal
\ninformation or whether these are personal information of such public
\nservants, who as third-parties hand these over to the public authority
\nconfidentially?\n<\/p>\n
23.    Asset Returns Statements are a declaration of the assets owned
\nby a public servant as also all transactions in such assets \/ property
\nfrom time to time.       Assets or immovable properties owned by or
\nbelonging to a person \u23af civil servant or not \u23af is doubtless his personal
\nmatter and, therefore, in the domain of personal information.          An
\nowner of an immovable property or an asset is not obliged to share
\ninformation about his ownership with anyone except when so required
\nunder specific laws.     All such interactions are exclusive and linear
\nbetween the State and the property or asset owner.\n<\/p>\n
24.    Filing of Asset or Property Returns by public servants before their
\nrespective public authorities, is most often a requirement under the
\nService or the Conduct Rules of such civil servants. Most such rules
\nprovide that all such Property or Assets Returns shall be tendered to the
\ndesignated public authority and shall be held confidentially by that
\npublic authority.      Disclosure of Property \/ Asset Return-related
\ninformation is authorized only when certain set conditions are met,
\nwhich may include the public servant facing an enquiry about
\nirregularity in assets acquisition and so on. The key-point is that the
\npublic servant concerned hands over an admittedly personal information
\n\u23af in this case the statement of his immovable assets \u23af on condition \/
\nassurance of its confidentiality given by public authority under
\nappropriate Rules.\n<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                             Page 11 of 17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 25.    Therefore, a statement of immovable assets of a public servant
\nheld by a public authority meets the two conditions laid-down in
\nSection 11(1), viz. (1) It is a third-party information and (2) It is held
\nconfidentially. Therefore, any decision to disclose or not to disclose
\nsuch information will have to be made in the context of Section 11(1).
\nThe parties to whom such information might relate to will have to be
\nconsulted and their objection, if any, to the disclosure of such
\ninformation will have to be factored in by the CPIO before he decides to
\ndisclose or not to disclose such an information.\n<\/p>\n
26.    Apart from Section 11(1), Section 8(1)(j) is also relevant for the
\npurpose of this category of information, i.e. personal information. It
\nfollows, that once it is established that a set of information is personal,
\nthe only reason why it should be disclosed is that it serves larger public
\ninterest. There is a noticeable congruence between Section 8(1)(j) and
\nSection 11(1) regarding the modality of disclosing personal, private or
\nthird-party information.      Both allude to public interest as the
\npre-requisite for authorizing their disclosre.\n<\/p>\n
27.    In our view, recourse to Section 11(1) is a better course of action
\nsince it gives to the CPIO the means to evaluate the pros and cons of
\ndisclosure of an information more closely through wider consultation.\n<\/p>\n
28.    It has also been brought to our notice that there had been some
\ndecisions made by the Commission in which it was stated that once an
\nindividual is required to submit an information under a statute, that
\ninformation ceases to be personal.      With respect, we are unable to
\naccept this reasoning. The character of a set of information would not
\nundergo change merely because it has been passed on to a government
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                             Page 12 of 17<\/span>
\n or to a public authority under a statute. For example, the details of
\nimmovable assets of a civil servant or an employee of the public
\nauthority, would not cease to be personal merely because the conduct
\nrules of such civil servant or employee required him to periodically
\nsubmit these to the public authority he serves. Once an information is
\ncharacterized as personal, it remains so regardless of who holds such
\ninformation. In fact, if personal information of an individual comes in
\nthe control of the public authority, it requires exercising of greater care
\nand caution by that public authority before sharing it openly, and
\nsharing it, if at-all, under pre-determined conditions and specific
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
29.    In our view, therefore, any disclosure of personal information \u23af
\nimmovable assets of an employee being one such \u23af can be authorized
\nonly if the conditions laid-down in Section 8(1)(j) and Section 11(1) are
\nmet on a case to case basis.\n<\/p>\n
30.    In this regard, we also refer to the decision dated 02.09.2009 of
\nthe Delhi High Court in the CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash
\nChandra Agarwal & Anr.; W.P.(C) No.288\/2009, given by Justice
\nS.Ravindra Bhat, in which the following finds mention:-\n<\/p>\n
       “67.   …………….. Therefore, if an important value in public disclosure of
\n       personal information is demonstrated, in the particular facts of a case, by
\n       way of objective material or evidence, furnished by the information seeker,
\n       the protection afforded by Section 8(1)(j) may not be available; in such case,
\n       the information officer can proceed to the next step of issuing notice to the
\n       concerned public official, as a “third party” and consider his views on why
\n       there should be no disclosure. The onus of showing that disclosure should be
\n       made, is upon the individual asserting it; he cannot merely say that as the
\n       information relates to a public official, there is a public interest element.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                      Page 13 of 17<\/span>
\n        Adopting such a simplistic argument would defeat the objective of Section
\n       8(1)(j); Parliamentary intention in carving out an exception from the normal
\n       rule requiring no ‘locus’ by virtue of Section 6, in the case of exemptions, is
\n       explicit through the non-obstante clause.\n<\/p>\n
       68.    This court cannot be unmindful of the fact that several categories of
\n       public servants, including Central and State Government servants, as well as
\n       public sector employees and officers of statutory corporations are required
\n       by service rules to declare their assets, periodically.     Settled procedures
\n       have been prescribed, both as to periodicity as well as contents of such asset
\n       disclosure. The regime ushered under the Act no doubt mandates, by Section
\n       4, disclosure of a wide spectrum of information held by each public authority
\n       to be disseminated to the public; it can even be through the medium of the
\n       internet. Yet, that provision is overridden by Section 8 – by virtue of the
\n       non-obstante clause. This means that such personal information – regarding
\n       asset disclosures, need not be made public, unless public interest
\n       considerations dictate it, under Section 8(1)(j)…………….”\n<\/p>\n
       “70.   …………….. Now, Section 8 (1) (j) clearly alludes to personal
\n       information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity
\n       or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
\n       individual. If public servants – here the expression is used expansively to
\n       include members of the higher judiciary too – are obliged to furnish asset
\n       declarations, the mere fact that they have to furnish such declaration would
\n       not mean that it is part of public activity, or “interest”. As observed earlier,
\n       a public servant does not cease to enjoy fundamental rights, upon assuming
\n       office. That the public servant has to make disclosures is a part of the
\n       system’s endeavor to appraise itself of potential asset acquisitions, which
\n       may have to be explained properly. However, such acquisitions can be made
\n       legitimately; no law bars public servants from acquiring properties, or
\n       investing their income. The obligation to disclose these investments and
\n       assets is to check the propensity to abuse a public office, for private gain. If
\n       the information applicant is able to demonstrate what Section 8(1) (j)
\n       enjoins the information seeker to, i.e. that “the larger public interest<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                       Page 14 of 17<\/span>
\n        justifies the disclosure of such information” the authority deciding the
\n       application can proceed to the next step, after recording its prima facie
\n       satisfaction, to issue notice to the “third party” i.e. the public servant who
\n       is the information subject, why the information sought should not be
\n       disclosed. After considering all these views and materials, the CPIO or
\n       concerned State PIO, as the case may be can pass appropriate orders,
\n       including directing disclosure. This order is appealable.\n<\/p>\n
       71.    Section 8 (1) in the opinion of the court, confers substantive rights
\n       even while engrafting procedural safeguards, because of the following
\n       elements:\n<\/p>\n
              (1)    Personal information and privacy rights being recognized by
\n                     Section 8 (1) (j), as the substantive rights of third parties;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Due satisfaction of the CPIO or the State PIO, that disclosure of
\n                     such personal information is necessary and in the public
\n                     interest – which is to be arrived at on the basis of objective
\n                     materials;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     The satisfaction being recorded after hearing or considering the
\n                     views of the third party whose information is in issue, in
\n                     accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 11;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2)    The satisfaction being recorded in writing, through an order,
\n                     under Section 11 (3);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3)    The order, if adverse to the third party, is appealable (Section
\n                     11(4)).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “74.   In this In this court’s opinion Section 8(1)(j) is both a check on the
\n       power of requiring information dissemination, (having regard to its potential
\n       impact on individual privacy rights,) as well as a mechanism whereby
\n       individuals have limited control over whether personal details can be made<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                        Page 15 of 17<\/span>
\n        public. This safeguard is made in public interest in favour of all public
\n       officials and public servants…….”\n<\/p>\n
       “75.   In view of the above discussion, it is held that the contents of asset
\n       declarations, pursuant to the 1997 resolution – and the 1999 Conference
\n       resolution- are entitled to be treated as personal information, and may be
\n       accessed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8(1)(j);
\n       they are not otherwise subject to disclosure……………”\n<\/p>\n
31.    In this connection, we also refer to the Delhi High Court decision
\ndated 30.11.2009 in Union of India Vs. Bhabaranjan Ray & Another;
\nW.P.(C) No.7304\/2007, in which Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed as
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
       “28.   …………….. As observed by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. the third part of
\n       Section 8(1)(j) reconciles two legal interests protected by law i.e. right to
\n       access information in possession of the public authorities and the right to
\n       privacy. Both rights are not absolute or complete. In case of a clash, larger
\n       public interest is the determinative test. Public interest element sweeps
\n       through Section 8(1)(j). Unwarranted invasion of privacy of any individual is
\n       protected in public interest, but gives way when larger public interest
\n       warrants disclosure. This necessarily has to be done on case to case basis
\n       taking into consideration many factors having regard to the circumstances of
\n       each case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
32.    We, therefore, reiterate that there cannot be an omnibus order
\nabout the disclosure of all immovable assets-related information of
\nemployees of public authorities.            The government or the public
\nauthorities may frame rules about disclosure of this class of information
\nheld by them as filed by their employees, but till such time as these
\nRules are framed and, the condition of confidentiality in which such
\ninformation is handed over to the public authority holds good, the
\nAT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                     Page 16 of 17<\/span>
\n request for their disclosure will have to be considered on a case-by-case
\nbasis under the provisions of Sections 8(1)(j) and 11(1) of the Act.
\nSimilarly, it shall be open to any public authority or the Government to
\nvoluntarily undertake to disclose this variety of information, fully or in
\npart.\n<\/p>\n
33.     Accordingly, the present case is remitted back to the CPIO,
\nCochin Port Trust, with the direction that he will consider this matter
\nunder the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) and\/or Section 11(1) of the RTI
\nAct and then take a view as enjoined by either or both Sections, which
\nshall be communicated to the appellant within 6 weeks from the date of
\nthe receipt of this order.\n<\/p>\n
33.     Appeal disposed of with the above directions.\n<\/p>\n
      (A.N. TIWARI)                                  ( M.L. SHARMA )\nInformation Commissioner                        Information Commissioner\n\n<\/pre>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of
\nthis Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(D.C. SINGH)
\nDeputy Registrar<\/p>\n
AT-22022010-01.doc
\n                                                                 Page 17 of 17<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00707 dated 29.05.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 PARTIES TO THE CASE: Appellant : Shri P.P. Rajeev Public Authority : Cochin Port Trust Date of Decision : 22.02.2010 FACTS OF THE CASE: The […]<\/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-173915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-04T12:47:15+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\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T12:47:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4677,\"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\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-04T12:47:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-04T12:47:15+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\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T12:47:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010"},"wordCount":4677,"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\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010","name":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-04T12:47:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-p-p-rajeev-vs-cochin-port-trust-on-22-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri P.P. Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust on 22 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173915","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=173915"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173915\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}