{"id":192559,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-07T02:11:48","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T20:41:48","slug":"shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                    Central Information Commission\n                                                                       CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/000778\n                                                                       Dated 1 December, 2009\n\n\nName of the Applicant                       :   Shri Suhas Chakma\n\nName of the Public Authority                :   Ministry of External Affairs\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2009 with the CPIO\/ Jt. Secretary, MEA<br \/>\n      seeking information pertaining to commission rogatoire &#8211; a set of questionnaires sent by<br \/>\n      Mr. Marc Tappolet, Juge d&#8217;instructiion, Geneva Canton, Switzerland to be asked by Indian<br \/>\n      Judiciary on his behalf pertaining to the criminal investigation (N P\/14993\/2006) being<br \/>\n      conducted by Judge Tappolet against one Mr. Ravi Nair. Precisely the Applicant sought the<br \/>\n      following information:\n<\/p>\n<p>       1. Confirmation whether the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) received commission<br \/>\n           rogatoire from Judge Tappolet;\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.   Copy of the commission rogatoire, and\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.   Action taken on the commission rogatoire<\/p>\n<p>2.     The CPIO\/Under Secretary (CPV &#8211; RTI) replied on 09.03.2009, upon receipt of the RTI<br \/>\n       application on 12.02.2009 on transfer from the O\/o Jt. Secretary. The CPIO\/Under<br \/>\n       Secretary denied information to the Appellant, seeking exemption under Section 8 (1) (a)<br \/>\n       and 8(1) (f) of the RTI Act 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Dissatisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal on 17.03.2009 with the Appellate<br \/>\n       Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellant further submitted that<br \/>\n       Juge d&#8217;instruction, Geneva Canton, Switzerland, Mr. Marc Tappolet is conducting a criminal<br \/>\n       investigation against one Mr. Ravi Nair (an Indian national), following complaint filed by<br \/>\n       the International Association &#8211; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, Geneva,<br \/>\n       Switzerland. The Appellant further pointed out that Judge Tappolet had sent the set of<br \/>\n       questionnaires &#8211; commission rogatoire to be asked by Indian Judiciary on Judge Tappolet&#8217;s<br \/>\n       behalf since Mr. Nair had refused to appear before Judge Tappolet. The said questionnaire<br \/>\n       was sent through diplomatic channels of the Swiss Foreign Ministry through Indian<br \/>\n       Embassy in Berne sometime during 2007 or 2008. The Appellant has further submitted<br \/>\n       that even if the set of questionnaire in itself is to be considered exempt under provisions of<br \/>\n       Section 8 (1) (a) and 8 (1) (f) RTI Act 2005, being confidential in nature; the questions<br \/>\n       number (1) and (3) asked by the Appellant needed only a response in affirmative or<br \/>\n       negative. In his detailed submissions contending that the order of the CPIO was bad in law,<br \/>\n       the Appellant has elaborately argued as to how the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a) and 8<br \/>\n       (1) (f) of the RTI Act 2005 are completely inapplicable to the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     The Appellate Authority replied on 28.04.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO and<br \/>\n       rejecting the appeal since she found that the queries of the Appellant were tainted by the<br \/>\n           Appellant&#8217;s motive &#8211; to settle his problems with one Mr. Ravi Nair. The Appellate<br \/>\n          Authority\/JS (CPV) further added that while examining the matter the CPIO had stated that<br \/>\n          the information as sought by the Appellant, apart from being exempt under Section 8 (1)\n<\/p>\n<p>          (a) and (f) was also personal information and hence should not be disclosed even under<br \/>\n          provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus completely denying that any public<br \/>\n          interest was involved in the Appellant&#8217;s query and holding that the information was sought<br \/>\n          only for the personal use to appease some vested interest of the Appellant, the Appellate<br \/>\n          Authority rejected the Appeal. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant was compelled<br \/>\n          to seek redressal before the CIC by filing the Second Appeal dt. 04.06.09 before the CIC,<br \/>\n          reiterating and recapitulating the entire chronology of events leading thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.        The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for<br \/>\n          August 20, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.        Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.        The Applicant was present in person alongwith Sh. Prantap Kalra, Advocate during the<br \/>\n          hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>8.        The Appellant vide subsequent submissions dated 20.08.2009 further contended that the<br \/>\n          stashing of Indian Funds in Swiss Banks is adverse to public interest. He further stated that<br \/>\n          the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court had admitted a Petition filed by the former Law Minister Mr.<br \/>\n          Ram Jethmalani and five others including former Punjab DGP Mr. K P S Gill alleging that the<br \/>\n          Government of India was not taking appropriate action in this regard. It has also been<br \/>\n          contended that necessary and adequate information was not being supplied to the Swiss<br \/>\n          Government and substantiated his argument with clippings of press reports indicating that<br \/>\n          documents submitted by the Government in 2007, in connection with yet another accused,<br \/>\n          one Mr. Hasan Ali Khan, were forged. The Appellant has furthermore elaborated on the non<br \/>\n          applicability of the exemptions provided under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005 in this case<br \/>\n          as also stating that the exemptions under Section 8 (1) are not absolute by citing various<br \/>\n          decisions of the CIC passed on this issue from time to time. Each of the decisions quoted<br \/>\n          by the Appellant indicate that the exemptions under Section 8(1) in itself do not attain<br \/>\n          absoluteness and have to be weighed against the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act<br \/>\n          2005 in order to determine whether &#8220;larger public interest&#8221; outweighs the need to exempt<br \/>\n          the information from disclosure. It is also the case of the Appellant that the Public Authority<br \/>\n          has failed to demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information would be prejudicial<br \/>\n          to national security or sovereignty and integrity, and has simply quoted the section without<br \/>\n          explaining the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>     9.   On the other hand, the Appellant has clearly established in his arguments and submissions<br \/>\n          that the public interest outweighs personal interests and also the arguments and<br \/>\n          exemptions as sought by the CPIO by stating more than one reason. One of the foremost<br \/>\n          reasons cited by the Appellant for seeking the information against Mr. Ravi Nair, who<br \/>\n          happened to be a co founder with the Appellant of the organization SAHRDC, was that Mr.<br \/>\n          Nair had evaded taxes to the tune of 40% by receiving foreign grants which neither he nor<br \/>\n       the organization viz. SAHRDC was entitled to receive under the Foreign Contribution<br \/>\n      Regulation Act 1976. This irregularity, as alleged by the Appellant, has been stated in the<br \/>\n      order of the Swiss Court as acknowledged in the order of the Tribunal de Premiere Instance<br \/>\n      of Geneva Canton, Switzerland. The non appearance of Mr. Nair, despite repeated<br \/>\n      summons, before the Swiss Court to explain the source of funds transferred to the account<br \/>\n      of IA-SAHRDC, in the criminal case instituted against him for his involvement in many<br \/>\n      criminal activities apart from money laundering, led to the sending of the set of<br \/>\n      questionnaire by the Swiss Court and Judge Tappolet to India seeking assistance from the<br \/>\n      Indian Government. The Appellant concluded this part of his submissions stating that<br \/>\n      &#8220;&#8230;public interest to bring back public money outweighs the exemptions claimed by the<br \/>\n      public authorities&#8230;.and does not harm the sovereignty of India&#8230;..rather refusal to take<br \/>\n      action against an accused is harming the relations&#8221;. The inaction on the part of the Indian<br \/>\n      authorities has now made the Swiss Judge to contemplate a visit to India to interrogate Mr.<br \/>\n      Nair because of the failure of the Indian authorities to address the set of questionnaires, as<br \/>\n      per the Appellant. The Appellant has enlisted the various contracts signed by the said Mr.<br \/>\n      Nair and SAHRDC with donors in New Delhi, receiving the money\/grants in Switzerland in<br \/>\n      order to avoid taxes and the provisions of FCRA, alongwith the supporting Bank Statements<br \/>\n      indicating the malafide of the parties to the transaction and the illegality of the transaction<br \/>\n      per se. The Appellant concluded his submissions reiterating that the rogatoire, information<br \/>\n      whereof is sought by him and public interest regarding stashing of Indian money in Swiss<br \/>\n      Banks, tax evasion, money laundering and violation of provisions of FCRA are           directly<br \/>\n      connected as clearly enunciated in the foregoing submissions alongwith the various<br \/>\n      documentary evidences. It is also submitted by the Appellant that had the rogatoire been<br \/>\n      such a confidential document, he would not have possessed any knowledge thereof.<br \/>\n      Assuming though not admitting that the said rogatoire was a confidential document, the<br \/>\n      questions as asked by the Appellant at points 1. and 3. could not be exempted from<br \/>\n      disclosure since the point 3 pertained to &#8220;Action Taken Report&#8221; by the Government of India<br \/>\n      for which exemptions under neither Section 8 (1) (a) nor Section 8 (1) (f) could be sought.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   After the detailed contentions of the Appellant, the Respondent&#8217;s representative sought<br \/>\n      time to address each of the issues and arguments by filing his submission in reply. In the<br \/>\n      interest of justice, and since the issue involved was critical in nature, the Commission<br \/>\n      granted a month&#8217;s time to the Respondent to file his reply. However, when no reply was<br \/>\n      received till 20th September 2009 from the Public Authority, the Public Authority was<br \/>\n      contacted and it transpired that they sought grant of additional time to submit their<br \/>\n      response, which was granted by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   When despite grant of adequate opportunities and repeated reminders, no submission was<br \/>\n      received from the Public Authority, the Commission was constrained to proceed with the<br \/>\n      decision in the matter based on the records available on record. It is already a known fact<br \/>\n      that the issue of stashing away of Indian money in the form of black money in the Swiss<br \/>\n      Banks has assumed national importance in the recent times. The press reports and<br \/>\n      extensive media coverage, the statements by the various leaders in this regard has made<br \/>\n      the issue an unavoidable matter of concern for the authorities concerned as also for the<br \/>\n      public. While deciding the matter, the Commission came across various reports which<br \/>\n        indicate that the money stashed away       in foreign banks in their illegal personal accounts<br \/>\n       may be to the tune of hundreds of thousands of Dollars.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.    Considering that the Indian Government is itself trying to propagate a transparent<br \/>\n       disclosure of information and also in view of the fact that the issue at hand is not merely<br \/>\n       the concern of an individual but one which involves national interest there can be no doubt<br \/>\n       that public interest is paramount in this case. More so in the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\n       case there can be no doubt that the Swiss Courts are seeking cooperation from their Indian<br \/>\n       counterparts in nailing the wrongdoers. The Commission, therefore, is unable to accept or<br \/>\n       agree with the contention of the Public Authority that disclosure of the information can in<br \/>\n       any way adversely affect the national sovereignty, security or integrity because national<br \/>\n       interest demands that all available information in this regard be disclosed and the<br \/>\n       perpetrators of such offences be traced and appropriate action be taken against them. No<br \/>\n       harm can befall in sharing information of this nature which involves the interest of the<br \/>\n       public at large, more so when the Appellant herein is already a party (witness) in the<br \/>\n       criminal investigation pending at the Swiss Courts. In fact non disclosure and\/or inaction on<br \/>\n       the part of the authorities concerned will be seen in a poor light not only at the national but<br \/>\n       also at the international level in as much as it will be almost be assumed to be an attempt<br \/>\n       to shield the guilty. Hence, it is the considered opinion of the Commission that complete<br \/>\n       information as sought by the Appellant being of paramount public interest must be shared<br \/>\n       and disclosed forthwith. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO to provide the<br \/>\n       information as sought by the Appellant by 25th December 2009. The Appeal is disposed off<br \/>\n       on the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                 (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                                          Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G.Subramanian)<br \/>\nAsst. Registrar<br \/>\n CC:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Shri Suhas Chakma<br \/>\n      C-3\/441-C<br \/>\n      Janakpuri<br \/>\n      New Delhi-110058<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Public Information Officer<br \/>\n      Ministry of External Affairs<br \/>\n      CPV Division<br \/>\n      Patiala House Annexe<br \/>\n      Tilak Marg<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      Ministry of External Affairs<br \/>\n      CPV Division<br \/>\n      Patiala House Annexe<br \/>\n      Tilak Marg<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/000778 Dated 1 December, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Shri Suhas Chakma Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs Background 1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2009 with the CPIO\/ Jt. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 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-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1894,\"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-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":1894,"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-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009","name":"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T20:41:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-suhas-chakma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Suhas Chakma vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 1 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/192559","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=192559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}