{"id":224986,"date":"2011-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3"},"modified":"2019-03-28T12:53:13","modified_gmt":"2019-03-28T07:23:13","slug":"dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                                   1\n\n\n              Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\nRoom\u00a0No.307,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0\n                     Place,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110066\n     Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&amp;\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in\n\n            \u00a0Appeal\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/001808\u00a0\n\n\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\/Complainant        :       Dr.\u00a0Abhishek\u00a0Gupta,\u00a0\nKolkata\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\nPublic\u00a0Authority               :       O\/o\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0\nOfficer,\u00a0Ward\u00ad3(1),\n                               Gwalior\u00a0(Shri\u00a0Likayat\u00a0Ali,\u00a0\nACIT\/AA\u00a0and\u00a0Shri\u00a0\n                               Lal\u00a0Singh\u00a0Jhala,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0-\u00a0\nthrough\u00a0video\n                               Conferencing)\u00a0\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0               :       04\u00a0May\u00a02011\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision               :       16\u00a0May\u00a02011\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n<p>:\u00ad\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>1.    Dr \u00a0 Abhishek \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 application\u00a0<br \/>\ndated \u00a0 22 \u00a0 April \u00a0 2010 \u00a0 before \u00a0 the \u00a0 CPIO, \u00a0 office \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nIncome \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 Officer \u00a0 Ward \u00a0 &#8211; \u00a0 3 \u00a0 (1), \u00a0 Gwalior \u00a0 seeking\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation \u00a0pertaining \u00a0to\u00a0all \u00a0records \u00a0available \u00a0with\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 Department \u00a0 including \u00a0 Assessment\u00a0<br \/>\nRecords\u00a0etc.,\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0Shri\u00a0Muralilal\u00a0Gupta\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\nMrs \u00a0 Shakuntala \u00a0 Devi \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 for \u00a0 the \u00a0 assessment \u00a0 years\u00a0<br \/>\n2004 \u00a0 &#8211; \u00a0 05 \u00a0 \u00a0 to \u00a0 2008 \u00a0 &#8211; \u00a0 09 \u00a0 &#8211;\u00a0 enclosed \u00a0 herewith \u00a0 as\u00a0<br \/>\nAnnexure\u00a0A.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     Vide\u00a0CPIO\u00a0order\u00a0dated\u00a014\u00a0May\u00a02010,\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0<br \/>\nwas \u00a0 denied \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 information \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 grounds\u00a0<br \/>\nthat \u00a0 information \u00a0 sought \u00a0 by \u00a0 him \u00a0 was \u00a0 pertaining \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\nthird \u00a0 party \u00a0 and \u00a0 that \u00a0 they \u00a0 had \u00a0 objected \u00a0 to \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ndisclosure\u00a0of\u00a0their\u00a0personal\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0him.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Appellant \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 dated \u00a0 19 \u00a0 May \u00a0 2010\u00a0<br \/>\nbefore\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0appellate\u00a0authority\u00a0who\u00a0decided\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nmatter \u00a0 vide \u00a0 FAA \u00a0 order \u00a0 dated \u00a0 15 \u00a0 June \u00a0 2010 \u00a0 after\u00a0<br \/>\nproviding\u00a0opportunity\u00a0of\u00a0hearing\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\ndenied\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0sought.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Appellant \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 second \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 before \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nCommission\u00a0to\u00a0challenge\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0orders.\u00a0The\u00a0matter\u00a0<br \/>\n                                                                  \u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>was\u00a0heard\u00a0today.\u00a0Respondent\u00a0was\u00a0present\u00a0as\u00a0above\u00a0and\u00a0<br \/>\nwas \u00a0 heard \u00a0 through \u00a0 videoconferencing \u00a0 from \u00a0 Gwalior.\u00a0<br \/>\nAppellant \u00a0 was \u00a0 present \u00a0 in \u00a0 person. \u00a0 Both \u00a0 parties\u00a0<br \/>\npresented \u00a0arguments. \u00a0 Appellant \u00a0 relied \u00a0on\u00a0decision \u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 in \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 number \u00a0 CIC\/LS\/A\/2010\/001044\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; \u00a0 DS \u00a0 dated \u00a0 24 \u00a0 March \u00a0 2011. \u00a0 Respondent \u00a0 reiterated \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\narguments \u00a0stated \u00a0 in\u00a0the\u00a0decision \u00a0of\u00a0the \u00a0CPIO\u00a0 and\u00a0on\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0speaking\u00a0order\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0appellate\u00a0authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        Decision\u00a0notice<\/p>\n<p>5.    After \u00a0 hearing \u00a0 both \u00a0 parties, \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0 the \u00a0 view \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 sought \u00a0 is \u00a0 not\u00a0<br \/>\ngranted \u00a0 immunity \u00a0 from \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 as \u00a0 class \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation. \u00a0 Protection \u00a0of \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 has \u00a0 to \u00a0 be\u00a0<br \/>\nensured \u00a0 by \u00a0 balancing \u00a0 the \u00a0 two \u00a0 competing \u00a0 aspects \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\npublic \u00a0 interest \u00a0 that \u00a0 is, \u00a0 if \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 would \u00a0 cause\u00a0<br \/>\ninjury\u00a0or\u00a0unwarranted\u00a0invasion\u00a0of\u00a0privacy\u00a0and\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nother \u00a0 hand \u00a0 is \u00a0 nondisclosure \u00a0 would \u00a0 thawart \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nAdministration\u00a0of\u00a0Justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    The \u00a0second \u00a0contention \u00a0of\u00a0 the\u00a0appellant \u00a0revolves\u00a0<br \/>\naround \u00a0 the \u00a0 concept \u00a0 of \u00a0 &#8220;larger \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest&#8221;. \u00a0 As\u00a0<br \/>\nper \u00a0 the \u00a0 averments \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 appellant, \u00a0 the \u00a0 &#8220;State&#8221; \u00a0 is\u00a0<br \/>\npursuing \u00a0 a \u00a0 criminal \u00a0 case \u00a0 against \u00a0 him \u00a0 and \u00a0 that \u00a0 since\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0 \u00a0&#8220;State&#8221;\u00a0has\u00a0decided\u00a0to\u00a0prosecute\u00a0him\u00a0because\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nlegal \u00a0 fiction \u00a0 created \u00a0 under \u00a0 section \u00a0 405 \u00a0 of \u00a0 IPC,\u00a0<br \/>\nautomatically\u00a0&#8220;larger\u00a0public\u00a0interest&#8221;\u00a0is\u00a0involved\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0matter.\u00a0The\u00a0matter\u00a0of\u00a0prosecution\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0case\u00a0is\u00a0<br \/>\nloosely \u00a0 termed \u00a0 as \u00a0 Dowry \u00a0 case \u00a0 which \u00a0 invariably \u00a0 have\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0components\u00a0of\u00a0&#8216;Criminal\u00a0Breach\u00a0of\u00a0Trust&#8217;\u00a0relating\u00a0<br \/>\nto \u00a0 misappropriation \u00a0 of \u00a0 property. \u00a0 In \u00a0 our \u00a0 view, \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\ncase, \u00a0 the \u00a0 State \u00a0 relies \u00a0 upon \u00a0 the \u00a0 fiction \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nmisappropriation,\u00a0then\u00a0the\u00a0other\u00a0party\u00a0should\u00a0have\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\nright\u00a0to\u00a0know\u00a0the\u00a0details\u00a0of\u00a0property\u00a0reflected\u00a0in\u00a0IT\u00a0<br \/>\nReturns\u00a0which\u00a0is\u00a0alleged\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0misappropriated.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The\u00a0mandate\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0to\u00a0disclose\u00a0personal\u00a0<br \/>\ninformation \u00a0 under \u00a0 Section \u00a0 8(1)(j) \u00a0 is \u00a0 even \u00a0 stricter\u00a0<br \/>\nsince \u00a0 it \u00a0 appends \u00a0 the \u00a0 expression \u00a0 &#8220;larger&#8221; \u00a0 to \u00a0 &#8220;public\u00a0<br \/>\ninterest&#8221;. \u00a0 Mere \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 will \u00a0 not \u00a0 suffice \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0personal\u00a0information\u00a0such\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0IT\u00a0<br \/>\nReturns\u00a0of\u00a0an\u00a0assessee\u00a0unless\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0can\u00a0prove\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                                 \u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>that \u00a0 a \u00a0 &#8220;larger&#8221; \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 demands \u00a0 such\u00a0<br \/>\ndisclosure.\u00a0The\u00a0expression\u00a0&#8220;larger&#8221;\u00a0cannot\u00a0be\u00a0defined\u00a0<br \/>\nor \u00a0 carved \u00a0 into \u00a0 a \u00a0 straight\u00adjacketed \u00a0 formula \u00a0 and\u00a0<br \/>\nneither \u00a0 can \u00a0 it \u00a0 be \u00a0 easily \u00a0 disposed \u00a0 of. \u00a0 If \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nApplicant \u00a0 incessantly \u00a0 stresses \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 argument \u00a0 that\u00a0<br \/>\nfalse \u00a0 dowry \u00a0 cases \u00a0 are \u00a0 a \u00a0 matter \u00a0 of \u00a0 &#8220;larger \u00a0 public\u00a0<br \/>\ninterest&#8221; \u00a0 and \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 relating \u00a0 to \u00a0 IT\u00a0<br \/>\nreturns \u00a0 of \u00a0 his \u00a0 father\u00adin\u00adlaw \u00a0 be \u00a0 furnished \u00a0 to \u00a0 him,\u00a0<br \/>\nthen \u00a0 an \u00a0 equally \u00a0 challenging \u00a0 rebuttal \u00a0 could \u00a0 be \u00a0 that\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax \u00a0 Act, \u00a0 which \u00a0 defines \u00a0 the \u00a0 procedure \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\ndisclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 such \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Returns \u00a0 to \u00a0 him, \u00a0 is \u00a0 a \u00a0 public\u00a0<br \/>\npolicy\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0enacted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0State\u00a0keeping\u00a0in\u00a0<br \/>\nmind \u00a0 the \u00a0 larger \u00a0 good \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 society. \u00a0 It \u00a0 is \u00a0 not \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ncase\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Respondents\u00a0that\u00a0objection\u00a0to\u00a0disclosure\u00a0<br \/>\nof \u00a0 the \u00a0 documents \u00a0 is \u00a0 taken \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 ground \u00a0 that \u00a0 it\u00a0<br \/>\nbelongs \u00a0 to \u00a0 a \u00a0 class \u00a0 of \u00a0 documents \u00a0 which \u00a0 are \u00a0 protected\u00a0<br \/>\nirrespective \u00a0 of \u00a0 their \u00a0 contents, \u00a0 because \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 no\u00a0<br \/>\nabsolute \u00a0 immunity \u00a0 for \u00a0 documents \u00a0 belonging \u00a0 to \u00a0 such\u00a0<br \/>\nclass.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     In \u00a0 my \u00a0 view, \u00a0 having \u00a0 assessed \u00a0 the \u00a0 factual\u00a0<br \/>\nsituation \u00a0 and \u00a0 the \u00a0 legal \u00a0 reasoning \u00a0 at \u00a0 hand, \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ncorrect \u00a0position \u00a0 of\u00a0law\u00a0is\u00a0 that\u00a0the \u00a0right \u00a0forum \u00a0for\u00a0<br \/>\nseeking \u00a0 the \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Returns \u00a0 of \u00a0 an \u00a0 assessee \u00a0 by \u00a0 a \u00a0 third\u00a0<br \/>\nperson \u00a0 is \u00a0 either \u00a0 the \u00a0 Chief \u00a0 Commissioner, \u00a0 Income \u00a0 Tax\u00a0<br \/>\nor\u00a0the\u00a0Concerned\u00a0Court,\u00a0if\u00a0the\u00a0matter\u00a0is \u00a0sub\u00adjudice.\u00a0<br \/>\nMy \u00a0 view \u00a0 is \u00a0 furthered \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 fact \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 position\u00a0<br \/>\nafter\u00a0the\u00a0repealing\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a0137\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0<br \/>\nAct,\u00a01961\u00a0by\u00a0Finance\u00a0Act,\u00a01964\u00a0is\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Court\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\nsub\u00adjudice \u00a0 matter \u00a0 can \u00a0 direct \u00a0 the \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Authorities \u00a0 to\u00a0<br \/>\nfurnish \u00a0 the \u00a0 information \u00a0 pertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 IT \u00a0 Returns \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nan \u00a0 assessee \u00a0 for \u00a0 inspection \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Court. \u00a0 Thus,\u00a0<br \/>\ndisclosure \u00a0 will \u00a0 be \u00a0 warranted \u00a0 if \u00a0 such \u00a0 line \u00a0 of \u00a0 action\u00a0<br \/>\nis \u00a0 followed. \u00a0 There \u00a0 is \u00a0 no \u00a0 absolute \u00a0 ban \u00a0 on \u00a0 disclosure\u00a0<br \/>\nof\u00a0IT\u00a0returns.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     \u00a0 Since, \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 appeal \u00a0 raises \u00a0 important\u00a0<br \/>\nquestions\u00a0of\u00a0law;\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0our\u00a0duty\u00a0to\u00a0apply\u00a0the\u00a0law\u00a0as\u00a0<br \/>\nit \u00a0 stands \u00a0 today. \u00a0 In \u00a0SP \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 vs. \u00a0 UOI \u00a0 ([1982] \u00a0 2 \u00a0 SCR\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>365),\u00a0a\u00a0seven\u00a0judges\u00a0bench\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Apex\u00a0Court\u00a0held\u00a0that\u00a0<br \/>\n&#8220;the\u00a0Court\u00a0would\u00a0allow\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0to\u00a0disclosure\u00a0if \u00a0<br \/>\nits \u00a0 finds \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 document \u00a0 relates \u00a0 to \u00a0 affairs \u00a0 of \u00a0<br \/>\nState\u00a0and\u00a0its\u00a0disclosure\u00a0would\u00a0be\u00a0injurious\u00a0to\u00a0public \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                                    \u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>interest, \u00a0 but \u00a0 on \u00a0 the \u00a0 other \u00a0 hand, \u00a0 if \u00a0 it \u00a0 reaches \u00a0 the \u00a0<br \/>\nconclusion \u00a0 that \u00a0the \u00a0document \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0 relate \u00a0 to \u00a0the \u00a0<br \/>\naffairs \u00a0 of \u00a0 State \u00a0 or \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 does \u00a0 not \u00a0<br \/>\ncompel\u00a0its\u00a0non\u00addisclosure\u00a0or\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0public\u00a0interest \u00a0<br \/>\nin\u00a0the\u00a0administration\u00a0of\u00a0justice\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0particular\u00a0case \u00a0<br \/>\noverrides \u00a0 all \u00a0 other \u00a0 aspects \u00a0 of \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest, \u00a0 it \u00a0<br \/>\nwill\u00a0overrule\u00a0the\u00a0objection\u00a0and\u00a0order\u00a0the\u00a0disclosure \u00a0<br \/>\nof \u00a0 the \u00a0 documents.&#8221; \u00a0 It \u00a0 was \u00a0 further \u00a0 held \u00a0 that \u00a0 &#8220;in\u00a0<br \/>\nbalancing \u00a0 the \u00a0 competing \u00a0interest, \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0the \u00a0duty \u00a0 of \u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 Court \u00a0 to \u00a0 see \u00a0 that \u00a0 there \u00a0 is \u00a0 the \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0<br \/>\nthat\u00a0harm\u00a0shall\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0done\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0nation\u00a0or\u00a0public \u00a0<br \/>\nservice\u00a0by\u00a0disclosure\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0document\u00a0and\u00a0there\u00a0is\u00a0a \u00a0<br \/>\npublic \u00a0 interest \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 administration \u00a0 of \u00a0 justice \u00a0<br \/>\nshall\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0frustrated\u00a0by\u00a0withholding\u00a0the\u00a0documents \u00a0<br \/>\nwhich\u00a0must\u00a0be\u00a0produced\u00a0if\u00a0justice\u00a0is\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0done.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>10. In \u00a0 light \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 above \u00a0 view \u00a0 taken \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Apex\u00a0<br \/>\nCourt,\u00a0I\u00a0am\u00a0inclined\u00a0to\u00a0make\u00a0an\u00a0 \u00a0observation\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0<br \/>\ncase. \u00a0 I \u00a0 have \u00a0 already \u00a0 discussed \u00a0 the \u00a0 settled \u00a0 point \u00a0 of\u00a0<br \/>\nlaw \u00a0 regarding \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 but \u00a0 it \u00a0 is \u00a0 in \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npursuance \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 principle \u00a0 of \u00a0 that \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest\u00a0<br \/>\nonly\u00a0where\u00a0we\u00a0feel\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0<br \/>\nnet \u00a0taxable \u00a0income \u00a0 of\u00a0an\u00a0assessee \u00a0for\u00a0the \u00a0period \u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nyear \u00a0 2000 \u00a0 till \u00a0 date \u00a0 be \u00a0 furnished \u00a0 by \u00a0 following \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nSection\u00a010\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0to\u00a0his\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Returns.\u00a0<br \/>\nWe \u00a0 shall \u00a0 distinguish \u00a0 the \u00a0 present \u00a0 case \u00a0 from \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\ndecision\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0Milap\u00a0Choraria\u00a0vs.\u00a0<br \/>\nCentral \u00a0 Board \u00a0 of \u00a0 Direct \u00a0 Taxes \u00a0 (Appeal \u00a0 No.\u00a0<br \/>\nCIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00628)\u00a0 as \u00a0 decided \u00a0 on \u00a0 15.06.2009 \u00a0 and \u00a0 in\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 case \u00a0 of \u00a0P.R.\u00a0Gokul\u00a0vs.\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax,\u00a0<br \/>\nKottayaam\u00a0(CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00405)\u00a0decided\u00a0on\u00a015.06.2007.\u00a0<br \/>\nThe\u00a0Milap\u00a0Choraria\u00a0Case\u00a0(supra)\u00a0did\u00a0not\u00a0deal\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0<br \/>\nissue\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0net\u00a0taxable\u00a0income\u00a0<br \/>\nper\u00a0se\u00a0while\u00a0the \u00a0Gokul\u00a0Case\u00a0 (supra)\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0centered\u00a0<br \/>\naround \u00a0 the \u00a0 issue \u00a0 of \u00a0 larger \u00a0 public \u00a0 interest \u00a0 for \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\npurpose \u00a0 of \u00a0 disclosure \u00a0 of \u00a0 net \u00a0 taxable \u00a0 income, \u00a0 unlike\u00a0<br \/>\nthe\u00a0present\u00a0case.\u00a0In\u00a0S.P.\u00a0Gupta\u00a0case\u00a0(Supra),\u00a0Supreme\u00a0<br \/>\nCourt\u00a0stated\u00a0&#8220;The\u00a0language\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0provision\u00a0is\u00a0not\u00a0a\u00a0<br \/>\nstatic \u00a0 vehicle \u00a0 of \u00a0 ideas \u00a0 and \u00a0 as \u00a0 institutional\u00a0<br \/>\ndevelopment \u00a0 and \u00a0 democratic \u00a0 structures \u00a0 gain \u00a0 strength,\u00a0<br \/>\na\u00a0more\u00a0liberal\u00a0approach\u00a0may\u00a0only\u00a0be\u00a0in\u00a0larger\u00a0public\u00a0<br \/>\ninterest.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                   \u00a0<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>11. CPIO \u00a0 is \u00a0 directed \u00a0 to \u00a0 furnish \u00a0 information\u00a0<br \/>\npertaining \u00a0 to \u00a0 the \u00a0 net \u00a0 taxable \u00a0 income \u00a0 of \u00a0 Shri\u00a0<br \/>\nMuralilal \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 and \u00a0 Smt \u00a0 Shakuntala \u00a0 Devi \u00a0 Gupta,\u00a0<br \/>\nfather\u00adin\u00adlaw \u00a0 and \u00a0 mother\u00adin\u00adlaw \u00a0 respectively \u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0<br \/>\nappellant\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0assessment\u00a0years\u00a02008\u00a0&#8211;\u00a009\u00a0and\u00a02009\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211;\u00a010\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0appellant\u00a0within\u00a0two\u00a0weeks\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 order. \u00a0 (These \u00a0 two \u00a0 years \u00a0 have \u00a0 been \u00a0 identified \u00a0 as\u00a0<br \/>\nthe \u00a0 appellant \u00a0 has \u00a0 stated \u00a0 that \u00a0 the \u00a0 date \u00a0 of \u00a0 his\u00a0<br \/>\nmarriage\u00a0was\u00a0February\u00a02008)<\/p>\n<p>12.   The\u00a0appeal\u00a0is\u00a0accordingly\u00a0disposed\u00a0of.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                       (Smt.\u00a0Deepak\u00a0Sandhu)<br \/>\n                              Information\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0(DS)<br \/>\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(T.\u00a0K.\u00a0Mohapatra)<br \/>\nUnder\u00a0Secretary\u00a0&amp;\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Registrar<br \/>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Copy\u00a0to:\u00ad<\/p>\n<p>1.    Dr.\u00a0Abishek\u00a0Gupta,\u00a0IAAS<br \/>\n      Principal\u00a0Director\u00a0of\u00a0Audit,\u00a0<br \/>\n      South\u00a0Eastern\u00a0Railway<br \/>\n      11,\u00a0Garden\u00a0Reach\u00a0Road,\u00a0Kolkata\u00ad474001<\/p>\n<p>2.    The\u00a0CPIO<br \/>\n      O\/o\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0Officer,\u00a0<br \/>\n      \u00a0Ward\u00ad3(1),\u00a0Gwalior,\u00a0Aayakar\u00a0Bhawan<br \/>\n      City\u00a0Centre,\u00a0Gwalior\u00ad474001.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority<br \/>\n      O\/o\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0Joint\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0of\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax<br \/>\n      \u00a0Range\u00ad3,\u00a0Gwalior,\u00a0Aayakar\u00a0Bhawan<br \/>\n      City\u00a0Centre,\u00a0Gwalior\u00ad474001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<br \/>\n\u00a0<br \/>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                                 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 1 Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission Room\u00a0No.307,\u00a0II\u00a0Floor,\u00a0B\u00a0Wing,\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0 Place,\u00a0New\u00a0Delhi\u00ad110066 Telefax:011\u00ad26180532\u00a0&amp;\u00a0011\u00ad26107254\u00a0website\u00adcic.gov.in \u00a0Appeal\u00a0:\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/DS\/A\/2010\/001808\u00a0 \u00a0Appellant\u00a0\/Complainant : Dr.\u00a0Abhishek\u00a0Gupta,\u00a0 Kolkata\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Public\u00a0Authority : O\/o\u00a0the\u00a0Income\u00a0Tax\u00a0 Officer,\u00a0Ward\u00ad3(1), Gwalior\u00a0(Shri\u00a0Likayat\u00a0Ali,\u00a0 ACIT\/AA\u00a0and\u00a0Shri\u00a0 Lal\u00a0Singh\u00a0Jhala,\u00a0CPIO\u00a0&#8211;\u00a0 through\u00a0video Conferencing)\u00a0 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Hearing\u00a0 : 04\u00a0May\u00a02011\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision : 16\u00a0May\u00a02011 Facts :\u00ad\u00a0 1. Dr \u00a0 Abhishek \u00a0 Gupta \u00a0 preferred \u00a0 RTI \u00a0 application\u00a0 dated \u00a0 22 \u00a0 [&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-224986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-28T07:23:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-28T07:23:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\"},\"wordCount\":1316,\"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\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\",\"name\":\"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-28T07:23:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-28T07:23:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-28T07:23:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3"},"wordCount":1316,"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\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3","name":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-28T07:23:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-abhishek-gupta-vs-insurance-division-on-16-may-2011-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Abhishek Gupta vs Insurance Division on 16 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224986","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=224986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}