{"id":69315,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-03T18:23:27","modified_gmt":"2016-04-03T12:53:27","slug":"mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n      Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC\/WB\/C\/2010\/000120 dated 14-5-2010\n               Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nComplainant:               Shri Venkatesh Nayak\nRespondent:                Dep't of Personnel & Training (DOPT)\n\n\n                                    Appeal heard in Full Bench 20.8.2010\n                                            Decision announced 30.8.2010\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
       In accordance with the Commission’s decision of 3-8-2010 in Single
\nBench the full Commission heard the case on 20th August 2010. The following
\nare present:\n<\/p>\n
       Complainant:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri Venkatesh Nayak
\n       Shri Shekhar Singh
\n       Respondents:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Shri V.K. Velukutty, DS (V.II) DOPT
\n       Shri K.G. Verma, Director (RTI) DOPT<\/p>\n
       In the decision of 3-8-2010 we had, while dismissing the appeal, on the
\nrequest for a copy of the draft PIDPI Bill approved by Cabinet, decided as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “…the larger complaint argued before us that the kind of information
\n     sought should not be exempted from disclosure u\/s 8 (1) (i), and dealt with
\n     as per Section 4 (1) (c ) is indeed not an issue which Dy. Secretary Shri
\n     V.K. Velukutty is competent to discuss. This issue touches upon the
\n     nature of the law itself and raises the issue of whether this Commission
\n     has the authority to determine (i) whether different clauses of law are
\n     contradictory, and (ii) if so found, to take action either u\/s 19 (8) (a) or
\n     Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act. To decide upon this issue we will require a
\n     larger Bench. For this purpose a Bench consisting of Chief Information
\n     Commissioner, Information Commissioner (SM) and Information
\n     Commissioner (DS) is constituted. The Full Bench will meet on 20th
\n     August, 2010 at 3.00 p.m. DOPT may on this occasion depute an officer
\n     authorised to discuss this issue and assist the Commission in arriving at a
\n     decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant Shri Venkatesh Nayak sought to clarify that clause 8 (1) (i)
\nand 4 (1) (c) are not contradictory but that the interpretation given to them by
\npublic authorities in disclosure under the RTI Act has been so thus far. In this<\/p>\n
                                       1<\/span>
\n context he had, subsequent to the hearing, submitted a supplementary
\nsubmission in which he has cited the contents of the circular of 15-4-02 of the
\nCabinet Secretariat laying down procedural requirements to be met while
\npreparing\/submitting notes for the Cabinet\/Cabinet Committee\/ Group of
\nMinisters. In this he invited our attention to the normal procedure for inter-
\nministerial consultation laid down in Part-V. He submitted that up to this stage
\nthe draft Cabinet Note cannot be considered a draft eligible for exemption
\nfrom disclosure u\/s 8 (1) (i).        This exemption can only apply to the Note
\nsubmitted in final draft to the Cabinet Secretariat. In this context he cited
\nsection 4 (1) (c), which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
4 (1) (c)
\n           ” publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies1
\n           or announcing the decisions which affect public.”\n<\/p>\n
           In the revised version of his supplementary submission appellant Shri
\nVenkatesh Nayak has referred to a decision of this Information Commission
\non this subject announced on 7.7.’10 in complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/000345
\nVenkatesh Nayak vs. Chief Secretary, Delhi<\/a> in which this Commission has
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “Given that the DP Bill is a significant legislative change, the
\n           relevant public authorities involved in drafting of the said bill had
\n           a duty to proactively disclose its contents under Section 4(1) (c)
\n           of the RTI Act. The concerned public authority, however, acted
\n           only after the Complainant approached the Commission and
\n           filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. The public
\n           authority should have disclosed the contents of the DP Bill suo
\n           motu and by omitting to do so, the very purpose of Section 4(1)
\n           of the RTI Act stands defeated. The Commission has further
\n           observed that at present, the GNCTD is not fully complying with
\n           Section 4 of the RTI Act and therefore, is of the view that
\n           citizens must be provided with means to debate legislative and
\n           policy changes which are likely to affect public lives as
\n           contemplated by the GNCTD. The citizens individually are the
\n           sovereigns of the democracy and they delegate their powers in
\n           the legislature. The RTI Act has recognized this and Section
\n           4(1) (c) is meant to ensure that the citizens would be kept
\n           informed about proposals for significant legislative and policy
\n           changes.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
    Underlined by us for reference<\/p>\n
                                            2<\/span>
\n        Although this does form part of the ruling in that appeal before the
\nCommission, this is not part of the Decision and we have treated it as an
\nissue to assist in our deliberation<\/p>\n
       Complainant Shri Nayak conceded that policies which do not require
\nCabinet approval need not face a perceived contradiction between Sections 8
\n(1) (i) and 4 (1) (c ). However, this has come up in the case of PIDPI Bill,
\nwhich constitutes in itself an important policy of wide public interest to be
\ndetermined through an Act of Parliament.        Appellant also made a written
\nsubmission in the hearing as follows:\n<\/p>\n
          1. “There is a distinction between the process of “formulation” and
\n          “approval”. Cabinet papers are for approval.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2. Till the draft bill is put up to the cabinet, it is essentially in a
\n          process of formulation (with intermediate internal approvals, which
\n          are not exempt as they are not from the cabinet).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3. The formulation process involves drafting, consultations,
\n          redrafting, interim approvals. This is the process that goes on up to
\n          and including when the committee of secretaries considers the draft
\n          bill. It is only after it is redrafted, following discussions in the
\n          committee of secretaries, that it can become a part of a cabinet
\n          note – which attracts exemption under S. 8 (1) (i).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4. Therefore, the provisions of S.4 (1)(c) are certainly applicable till
\n          the stage of a cabinet note.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          5. Besides, if this was not so, there is no real mechanism for public
\n          consultations, as bills in Parliament do not necessarily have to be
\n          opened to public feedback, and there is no other mechanism,
\n          without an elaborate procedure, which is almost never activated, of
\n          allowing the public to effectively comment on the draft bill.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          6. In any case, it is much easier and time effective to allow a public
\n          debate before the bill is introduced in Parliament, as that is the only
\n          way that the public can brief its representatives in Parliament,
\n          directly or through the mass media, to represent their views.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          7. Therefore, there is actually no conflict between 8(1)(i) and 4(1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (c), unless the government insists on terming every document that
\n          is involved in any process that might finally lead to seeking approval
\n          of the cabinet, as a cabinet paper this is not only incorrect but also
\n          not in public interest.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          8. However, selectively other exemptions under S.8 (1) can be
\n          invoked, where relevant, to exempt those papers (even though they
\n          are not yet cabinet papers) that attract one or more of the
\n          exemptions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          9. It might also be pointed out here that though S.8 (1)(i) exempts
\n          “cabinet papers”, it does not ipso facto exempt material that is
\n          independent of the cabinet note, though it might also be a part of
\n          the cabinet note. Therefore, if a cabinet note contains statistics<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n                about poverty, for example, the fact that those statistics become a
\n               part of the cabinet note does not mean that they are now exempt
\n               under the RTI Act. Perhaps that is why the Government thought it fit
\n               to release a copy of the draft bill to the media even before the
\n               cabinet meeting (see attachments), even while denying it under the
\n               RTI.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In this context appellant cited the Finance Ministry’s publication in
\nAugust 2009 of a “Draft Direct Taxes Code Bill (Draft Code)”, discussing the
\nneed for replacing the Income Tax Act, which placed the draft Bill together
\nwith a discussion paper in the public domain, followed by publication of a
\nrevised discussion paper on the subject dated June 15, 2010. On a question
\nby the Bench as to whether publication of the draft Bill still under
\nconsideration will not amount to breach of privilege of Parliament and is
\ntherefore, exempt u\/s 8 (1) (c) Shri Shekhar Singh assisting complainant
\nsubmitted that Parliament has no claim over a draft Bill prepared by
\nGovernment until it has been approved for submission to Parliament by
\nCabinet.\n<\/p>\n
          Respondent Shri K.G. Verma, Director, DOPT, on the other hand,
\nsubmitted that the very first words in clause 8 (1) of the Act read,
\n“Notwithstanding anything2 contained in this Act”. If therefore follows that if
\nthere is any perceived contradiction, it is the exemption u\/s 8 (1) which will
\noverride such a contradiction. If, therefore, the draft Bill before its submission
\nto Cabinet is made public Section 8 (1) (i) will be rendered irrelevant. Shri
\nK.G. Verma submitted that at any rate there is a full discussion in Parliament
\non presentation of Draft legislation and also the requirement of a Press
\nbriefing. In the present case Shri Velukutty displayed press reports, which
\nindicated that Government has indeed disclosed this information.                He
\ndisplayed newspaper reports of August 5, 2010 in Hindustan Times, New
\nDelhi, Times of India New Delhi, and Indian Express New Delhi. After the
\nconsideration of the Bill by Cabinet follow up reports also appeared in the
\nHindustan Times and Indian Express dated 10-8-2010 but as pointed out by
\ncomplainant in the hearing, this did not form part of the PIB Press release of
\nthat date. Compalinant has taken note of this in point 9 of his written<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n    Emphasised by respondent<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span>
\n submission that we quote above. Shri Velukutty further submitted that the
\nquestion on policy formulation would apply only once the Bill has been passed
\nby Parliament, which will then form the basis of policy.
\nDECISION NOTICE:\n<\/p>\n
       The plea of complainant is that the information he seeks is not in
\nviolation of Section 8 (1) (i) but is only in full compliance with Section 4 (1) (c)
\ninsofar as it applies to Section 8 (1) (i).    The key issue for decision here,
\ntherefore, would appear to us to be to distinguish what constitutes the stage of
\n“formulation”, when disclosure of draft legislation leading to policy is mandatory,
\nas against the stage of “finalisation”, when it will constitute a document exempt
\nfrom disclosure. This would imply that exemption u\/s 8 (1) (i) will not apply to
\ndeliberations leading to formulation of a policy framework till such time as the
\ndraft is submitted to the Cabinet Secretariat, with all its necessary attachments
\nfor submission to the Cabinet, which would then be a final form given to the
\ndraft. Thereafter, this draft would remain exempt from disclosure till such time
\nas the decision has been taken and action to be taken thereon is “complete
\nand over”.\n<\/p>\n
       In the present case appellant’s plea for access to the PIDPI Bill passed
\nby the Parliament has been refused and appeal before us dismissed in our
\ndecision of 3-8-2010 on the grounds that this is a request for information after
\nthe draft Bill has been put in motion for submission to Parliament. At that
\nstage the disclosure would be in violation not only of Section 8 (1) (i) but also
\nof Section 8 (1) (c). However, with reference to the larger issue, the Cabinet
\nSecretariat in its procedural requirement to be met by preparing notes has
\nnoted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “There have been instances in which the data\/information,
\n       based on which proposals are formulated, has undergone
\n       significant changes by the time the proposals are actually
\n       considered by the Cabinet\/ Cabinet Committees\/ GOM. In such
\n       cases, it would be advisable either to withdraw the Note for
\n       necessary updating and revision or bring the facts to the notice
\n       of the Cabinet Secretary\/ Cabinet\/ Cabinet Committees\/ GOM
\n       for consideration, before the note is taken up for consideration.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       A Note that is withdrawn would therefore not constitute a Cabinet Note
\nand would consequently qualify for disclosure. The distinction between<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span>
\n formulation and finalisation is then clear. It is only when proposals formulated
\nare actually taken up for consideration by the Cabinet that they become so
\nexempt. In other words, when a Cabinet Note is finally approved for
\nsubmission to the Cabinet through the Cabinet Secretariat Sec 8 (1) (i) will
\napply. Once approved by Cabinet it will also qualify for exemption u\/s 8 (1) (c).\n<\/p>\n
       For the above reasons this Commission holds that exemption u\/s 8 (1)\n<\/p>\n
(i) will apply only when a Note is submitted by the Ministry that has formulated
\nit to the Cabinet Secretariat for placing this before the Cabinet. All
\nconcomitant information preceding that, which does not constitute a part of
\nthat Cabinet Note will then be open to disclosure u\/s 4 (1) (c), but in a manner
\nas will not violate the provisions of Sec 8 (1) (i). The Commission further
\nrecommends u\/s 25 (5) that Cabinet Secretariat considers amending Part V of
\nCircular No. 1\/16\/1\/2000-Cab of 15.4.2002 to allow for public consultation in
\nappropriate form. This issue is decided accordingly. There will be no cost.\n<\/p>\n
       Reserved in the hearing, this decision is announced in open chambers
\non this the thirtieth day of August 2010. Notice of this decision be given free
\nof cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Satyananda Mishra)                                         (Deepak Sandhu)\nInformation Commissioner                             Information Commissioner\n\n\n\n                               (Wajahat Habibullah)\n                          Chief 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
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n30-8-2010<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC\/WB\/C\/2010\/000120 dated 14-5-2010 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Complainant: Shri Venkatesh Nayak Respondent: Dep’t of Personnel & Training (DOPT) Appeal heard in Full Bench 20.8.2010 Decision announced 30.8.2010 Background […]<\/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-69315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 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\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-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=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-03T12:53:27+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T12:53:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2117,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-03T12:53:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 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":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 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\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-03T12:53:27+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T12:53:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":2117,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010","name":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-03T12:53:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-venkatesh-nayak-vs-ministry-of-personnel-public-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public … on 30 August, 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\/69315","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=69315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}