{"id":76767,"date":"2009-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-04T14:15:47","modified_gmt":"2017-06-04T08:45:47","slug":"ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009<\/div>\n
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                 Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/01286 dated 14-7-2008\n                   Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:            Ms. Neetu Pandey\nRespondent:           Border Security Force (BSF)\n                          Decision announced: 18.12.2009\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 8-4-08 Ms. Neetu Pandey of Lodhi Colony, New
\nDelhi applied to the DG, BSF Shri A.K. Mitra seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
      “I want to know under RTI Act, 2005 that what action has been
\n      taken against D V Saraswat under CCS Conduct Rules 1964 on
\n      the following points;-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      i)      Whether D V Saraswat is still in govt. service. If yes, on
\n              which date he is to be retired? If not his date of
\n              retirement is to be intimated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ii)     Every time D V Saraswat put himself as a guardian of
\n              Raju Saraswat. In matrimonial column of Times of India
\n              dated 18.7.2004 Raju Saraswat has given the address of
\n              D V Saraswat of Jodhpur (certified copy enclosed please).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii)    Taking dowry on 23.11.2004 on the date of my marriage
\n              at 37, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi-23.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv)     Influencing and misusing his official position on the basis
\n              of which he and his wife was not arrested by Delhi Police.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      v)      Misusing govt vehicle (nilli batti wali Ambassador Car) on
\n              dated 10.9.2004, 11.9.2004, 14.9.2004 and 23.11.2004.
\n              On 23.11.2004 the groom came at community centre,
\n              Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi in that nilli batti wali Car at
\n              the reception gate of community centre along with D V
\n              Saraswat and Kusum Saraswat, which photographs and
\n              video are available with me and were also sent to you
\n              along with my complaint dated 30.7.2005.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      It seems that Ms. Neetu Pandey received no reply to this which caused
\nher to repeat the application on 8-5-08 to DG BSF, upon which she received
\nthe following reply dated 16-5-08from Shri D.K. Upadhyay, Addl. DIG
\n(Confidential) BSF:\n<\/p>\n
      “It is to inform you that BSF is a Security Organization of Govt of
\n      India and that a qualified exemption has been given under
\n      section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 to BSF. As such, no information
\n      relating to this Organization can be provided.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
       Thereafter, Ms. Pandey moved a third application dated 24-5-08 before
\nthe DG, BSF which we have treated as first appeal, pleading as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “I am not seeking information about a Security Organization like
\n      ‘BSF’ but information about a corrupt employee of ‘BSF’ who
\n      has taken dowry on dated 23.11.2004 (date of my marriage),
\n      misused Govt. money, vehicle and his official position and thus
\n      has violated human rights. It is also stated that ‘BSF’ is not a
\n      SECRET organization but is an OPEN department of Govt. of
\n      India under Ministry of Home Affairs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ‘BSF’ cannot hide the action taken on my complaints dated
\n      30.7.2005 and 4.11.2005 in respect of grave offences committed
\n      by D. V. Saraswat. If so, then the department is favouring him
\n      blindly. Any organization is not above the law framed by the
\n      parliament in the year 2005 i.e. RTI Act, 2005.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On not receiving a response Ms. Pandey has moved a second appeal
\nbefore us with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
      “It is requested that DG, BSF, may kindly be directed to provide
\n      information about DV Saraswat, DIG, BSF under RTI Act, 2005
\n      about the sub-para i. ii, iii and iv of para 2.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The sub-paras in question are as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “i)    Taking dowry on 23.11.2004 on the date of marriage at
\n             37, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ii)    Influencing SHO\/ IO and misusing his official position on
\n             the basis of which he and his wife were not arrested by
\n             the police.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iii)   Misusing govt. vehicle (nili bati wali ambassador car) on
\n             10.9.04, 11.9.04, 14.9.04 and 23.11.2006.              On
\n             23.11.2004 the groom came at Community Centre,
\n             Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi in that nilibati wali car at the
\n             Reception gate of Community Centre, along with DV
\n             Saraswat, and Kusum Saraswat, photos and video of
\n             which are available with me and those photos were also
\n             sent to the then DG, BSF along with my complaints dated
\n             30.7.2005.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      iv)    Every time DV Saraswat put himself as a guardian of
\n             Raju Saraswat. In Matrimonial column of Times of India,
\n             dated 18.7.2007, Raju Saraswat has given the address of
\n             DV Saraswat of Jodhpur (certified copy has already been
\n             sent to you on 8.5.2008 along with my 1st appeal).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appeal was heard on 18-12-2009. The following are present:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Appellant
\n      Ms. Neetu Pandey
\n      Shri R. R. Pandey, assisting appellant<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n        Respondents
\n       Shri M. Tripathi, DIG
\n       Shri Vijay Yadav, COMDT
\n       Shri Neeraj, DIG
\n       Shri Karamvir Singh, SI\/ Min<\/p>\n
       Because the application contains allegations of corrupt misuse of
\nauthority by DIG, Mr. Saraswat it clearly amounts to allegations of corruption.
\nThis, of course, was not clarified in the earlier application of 8-4-08 and 8-5-08
\nof appellant Ms. Neetu Pandey but has indeed been clarified in the letter of
\n24-5-08 written in response to the reply received by her on 16-5-08 from Addl.
\nDG Shri Upadhyay. Upon this Shri M. Tripathi, DIG, BSF submitted that this
\nis the reason why in his response of 16-7-08 Shri Balbir Singh, DIG
\n(Personnel) had indeed provided the information sought by Ms. Neetu Pandey
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “Regarding misuse of Govt. vehicle, department has already
\n       taken an appropriate action against Shri D. V. Saraswat, Addl.
\n       DG.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       As regards case of dowry, a FIR No. 268\/05 U\/S 498-A\/406 IPC
\n       dated 31st May 2005 has been lodged by you at P. S. Sarojini
\n       Nagar and the case is sub-judice in the Hon’ble Court of Mahila
\n       Court, Patiala House, New Delhi, therefore, no comments can
\n       be offered.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       A copy of this letter is not on our file since the appeal had been moved
\nbefore us on 12-7-08. Shri R.R. Pandey assisting the appellant agreed that,
\nin fact, the response of 16-7-08 has been received, but on the issue of misuse
\nof Government vehicle although a reply has been given, the action on the
\ncomplaint has not been provided other than the assurance that “department
\nhas already taken an appropriate action”.\n<\/p>\n
                              DECISION NOTICE:\n<\/p>\n
       There are clear allegations of corruption in the application of Ms. Neetu
\nPandey. It is, however, true that in the original applications this issue had not
\nbeen clarified and, therefore, the BSF was within its right to not provide
\ninformation in this regard. Nevertheless, even where information was not to
\nbe provided the BSF is advised that such refusal should be made available on
\nreceipt of an RTI application that is not eligible for consideration, within the<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span>
\n time limit specified under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act.                            This institutional
\nframework can be a part of the framework which this organisation will, no
\ndoubt, have set up to service applications under the RTI Act which are eligible
\nfor consideration under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 24. We
\nnotice that even the response to the appeal of 24-5-08 has been sent only on
\n16-7-08 whereas under Section 19 (6) such a response is expected to be
\n“disposed of within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal or even such extended
\nperiod not exceeding a total of 45 days from the date of filing thereof as the
\ncase may for reasons to be recorded in writing”1 .\n<\/p>\n
           This points to the requirement of the BSF to take such steps as are
\nnecessary to secure compliance with provisions of the Act which, therefore,
\nthey are directed to do u\/s 19 (8) (a) (i) and (v) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the
\npresent case, however, we find that the answer to questions 1 and 2 has now
\nbeen provided. On the question at serial No.3 although the fact is indeed
\ndisclosed that action has been taken, this does not answer the question of
\n‘what action has been taken against D V Saraswat under CCS Conduct Rules
\n1964’. This will now be disclosed to appellant within 10 working days of the
\ndate of receipt of this decision notice. Question at serial No. 4 does not
\namount to an allegation of corruption but is only a simple complaint and,
\ntherefore, cannot merit a response from the BSF, a para-military force listed at
\nserial No. 9 of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act 2005. Appeal is, therefore,
\nallowed in part. There will be no costs, but any information now provided will
\nbe free of cost as per Sec 7(6)<\/p>\n
           Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n18-12-2009<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    Emphasis added to highlight the importance given the matter of limitation of time limits<\/p>\n
                                                     4<\/span>
\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
\n18-12-2009<\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/01286 dated 14-7-2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Ms. Neetu Pandey Respondent: Border Security Force (BSF) Decision announced: 18.12.2009 FACTS By an application of 8-4-08 Ms. Neetu Pandey of Lodhi Colony, […]<\/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-76767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMs. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - 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\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-04T08:45:47+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\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T08:45:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1408,\"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\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-04T08:45:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 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":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - 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\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-04T08:45:47+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\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T08:45:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009"},"wordCount":1408,"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\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009","name":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-04T08:45:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-neetu-pandey-vs-border-security-force-bsf-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms. Neetu Pandey vs Border Security Force (Bsf) on 18 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\/76767","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=76767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}