{"id":89358,"date":"2010-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-09T11:08:08","modified_gmt":"2017-09-09T05:38:08","slug":"mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n               Appeal No. CIC\/PA\/A\/2009\/000013 dated 31-12-2009\n                 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri R. Sekar,\nRespondent:          High Court of Madras\n                 Decision announced in the hearing 9.8.'10\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
     By an application of 23-2-2009 Shri R. Sekar of West Brindavanam,
\nPuducherry applied to the PIO High Court of Madras seeking the following
\ninformation:\n<\/p>\n
        “I am a Lecturer in Physics working at Tagore Arts College,
\n       Pondicherry. Since the said judgment affects my service
\n       conditions, therefore, the certified copies of the judgment are
\n       asked for.”<\/p>\n
       To this appellant Shri R. Sekar received a response on 24.3.2009 from
\nDeputy Registrar, Tmt R. Susheela Devi, High Court of Madras informing him
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “I am to inform that copies of the document can be obtained by
\n       applying for third party document by following the rules and
\n       procedures are laid down in the Appellate Side Rules of the
\n       High Court, Madras.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Aggrieved, however, Shri Sekar moved an appeal on 7.4.2009 before the
\nRegistrar General, High Court of Madras pleading as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
       “Since it has been ruled that certified copies, if applied for under
\n       RTI, cannot be denied, I may be given the copies requested for
\n       at once.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       He has attached a copy of the order of this Commission in N.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Venkatesan vs. Public Information Officer, Office of the District and
\nSessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in which the Commission has held
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “If a Public authority has a process of disclosing certain
\n       information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using Right
\n       to Information, it is the citizen’s right to decide which route he
\n       wishes to use. The existence of another method of accessing
\n       information cannot be used to deny the Citizen his freedom to
\n       use his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information
\n       Act. If Parliament wanted to restrict his right, it would have been<\/p>\n
                                        1<\/span>
\n        stated in the Law. Nobody else has the right to constrain or
\n       constrict the rights of the Citizen.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Upon this, Shri    A. Arumugasamy, Registrar General, High Court of
\nMadras in his order of 7.5.2009 has directed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “When there is a specific provision, you are required to obtain
\n       your information from the concerned section in the High Court
\n       only by adhering to the Court procedures and rules.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       This has brought appellant Shri R. Sekar before us in his second
\nappeal with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
        “Certified copies of the order in WP Nos. 16402 & 30268 of
\n       2004 dated 8.12.2006 (High Court, Madras) should be given as
\n       per the ruling of the CIC Shri Shailesh Gandhi.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The appeal was heard through videoconference on 9-8-2010. The
\nfollowing are present.\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant at NIC Studio Puducherry
\n       Shri R. Sekar
\n       Shri Ram Ramesh
\n       Respondents at NIC Studio, Chennai
\n       Shri Nalla Chezhapati, APIO<\/p>\n
       Appellant Shri R. Sekar argued that the ruling of this Commission cited
\nby them implied that all information, no matter which the public authority, could
\nbe accessed under the RTI Act and, therefore, the High Court of Madras has
\nerred in requiring appellant Shri R. Sekar to seek information through some
\nother means.\n<\/p>\n
                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       We find that in her response of 24.3.2009 CPIO Tmt R. Susheela Devi
\nhas not refused information but only advised on the procedure to be followed
\nto obtain the same under section 2 (e) (ii) & 2 (e) (iii) of the RTI Act. The
\nChief Justice of the High Court in the case of a High Court is the competent
\nauthority so empowered under the law. It is this Competent Authority under
\nsection 28 (1), which is authorised to make rules to carry out provisions of this
\nAct by notification in the Official Gazette.          The implication of this
\nCommission’s ruling relied upon by appellant Shri R. Sekar is not that
\ninformation cannot be sought under the rules prescribed under the Act, but<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n only that information sought under this Act cannot be denied. Besides this,
\nCommission has, in several cases, staring with n CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/000275
\nManish K Khanna Advocate vs. High Court of Delhi<\/a> announced on 7.6.07
\ndecided that rules formulated by a competent authority even before the
\npromulgation of the RTI Act were still existing and, if not inconsistent with the
\nRTI Act which in this case the prescribed rules are not inasmuch as they
\nprovide means to access information, are not overridden by the RTI Act. In
\nCIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/000940 Manish K Khanna Advocate vs. Supreme Court
\nof India<\/a> announced on 24.9.07, we have discussed the issue in detail as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       What has been sought by appellant is a set of judicial files.
\n       Judicial files can be accessed with the leave of the court under
\n       Supreme Court Rules 1966. The issue for determination before
\n       us is therefore whether the RTI Act applies to a judicial
\n       proceeding and, if so, does it override the existing law
\n       concerning dissemination of information in respect of a judicial
\n       proceeding?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       The question may arise as to whether section 22 of the Act
\n       overrides any other provision concerning dissemination of
\n       information or giving certified copies or copies of documents and
\n       other records pertaining to a proceeding conducted by a court or
\n       a tribunal, deeming this to be inconsistent therewith. In this
\n       context, it is worthwhile to note that the Rules made by the
\n       Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred by the
\n       Constitution of India and the provisions of Right to Information
\n       Act overlap each other in certain areas. One view could be that
\n       RTI being a later legislation should prevail over an earlier
\n       legislation. The other view could be that insofar as the grant of
\n       copies of documents or records in a proceeding of a court or
\n       tribunal is a matter in respect of which the Right to Information
\n       Act has to be treated as a general law and the Rules made by
\n       the Supreme Court are to be treated as a special law.
\n       It is also noteworthy to take into account that section 22 of the
\n       Right to Information Act explicitly mentions the overriding effect
\n       of the Right to Information Act in respect of inconsistencies in
\n       the Official Secrets Act but, although it refers to any other law or
\n       any instrument having effect under that law (which would include
\n       Rules) for the time being in force, it does not make a specific
\n       mention of any other legislation. The non-obstante clause of the
\n       Right to Information Act does not, therefore, mean an implied
\n       repeal of the Supreme Court Rules and orders framed
\n       thereunder, but only an override of RTI in case of
\n       ‘inconsistency’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
           In this context, the following observations of the Hon’ble Apex
\n          Court in R.S. Raghunath vs. State of Karnataka – AIR 1992
\n          SC 81 are pertinent:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “The general Rule to be followed in case of conflict
\n                  between the two statutes is that the latter abrogates the
\n                  earlier one. In other words, a prior special law would yield
\n                  to a later general law, if either of the two following
\n                  conditions is satisfied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(i)                                 The two are inconsistent with each\nother.\n(ii)                               There is some express reference in the\nlater to the earlier enactment.\n<\/pre>\n
                If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law,
\n                even though general, would prevail.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        A special enactment or Rule, therefore, cannot be held to be
\n        overridden by a later general enactment or simply because the
\n        latter opens up with a nonobstante clause unless there is clear
\n        inconsistency between the two legislations- one which is later in
\n        order of time and the other which is a special enactment This
\n        issue came again for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex
\n        Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla<\/a> –
\n        AIR 2002 SC 2322 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted with
\n        approval the Broom’s Legal Maxim in reference to two Latin
\n        Maxims in the following words:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “It is then, an elementary Rule that an earlier Act must
\n                give place to a later, if the two cannot be reconciled – lex
\n                posterior derogat priori – non est novum ut priores
\n                leges ad posteriors trahantur (Emphasis supplied) –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                and one Act may repeal another by express words or by
\n                implication; for it is enough if there be words which by
\n                necessary implication repeal it. But repeal by implication
\n                is never to be favoured, and must not be imputed to the
\n                legislature without necessity, or strong reason, to be
\n                shown by the party imputing it. It is only effected where
\n                the provisions of the later enactment are so
\n                inconsistent with, or repugnant to, those of the
\n                earlier that the two cannot stand together 1; unless the
\n                two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect
\n                cannot be given to both at the same time a repeal cannot
\n                be implied; and special Acts are not repealed by general
\n                Acts unless there be some express reference to the
\n                previous legislation, or a necessary inconsistency in the
\n                two Acts standing together, which prevents the maxim
\n                generalia specialibus non derogant (Emphasis
\n                supplied) from being applied. For where there are general
\n                words in a later Act capable of reasonable application
\n                without being extended to subjects specially dealt with by
\n                earlier legislation, then, in the absence of an indication of
\n                a particular intention to that effect, the presumption is that
\n1<\/span>
\n    Emphasis ours<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span>
\n               the general words were not intended to repeal the earlier
\n              and special legislation, or to take away a particular
\n              privilege of a particular class of persons.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court also cited with
\n      approval an earlier decision in Maharaja Pratap Singh
\n      Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey<\/a> – MANU\/SC\/0202\/1966, in
\n      which it was indicated that an earlier special law cannot be held
\n      to have been abrogated by mere implication. That being so, the
\n      argument regarding implied repeal has to be rejected for both
\n      the reasons set out above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The differences between the Right to Information Act and the
\n      procedure as prescribed by the Supreme Court for conduct of its
\n      own practice and procedure have to be looked into from another
\n      angle also as to whether there is a direct inconsistency between
\n      the two. In this context, it may be mentioned that neither
\n      provision prohibits or forbids dissemination of information
\n      or grant of copies of records. The difference is only insofar as
\n      the practice or payments of fees etc. is concerned. There is,
\n      therefore, no inherent inconsistency between the two provisions.
\n      Over and above, the Supreme Court Rules are particular or
\n      special law dealing with particular phase of the subject covered
\n      by the Right to Information Act and, therefore, consistency is
\n      possible. It is a sound principle of all jurisprudence that a prior
\n      particular law is not easily to be held to be abrogated by a
\n      posterior law expressed in general terms. The said principle was
\n      accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and expressed by
\n      Justice Mudholkar in the following words:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “A general statute applies to all persons and localities
\n              within its jurisdiction and scope as distinguished from a
\n              special one which in its operation is confined to a
\n              particular locality and, therefore, where it is doubtful
\n              whether the special statute was intended to be repealed
\n              by the general statute the court should try to give effect to
\n              both the enactments as far as possible.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      U\/s 22 of the RTI Act the provisions of the RTI Act have effect
\n      notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
\n      other law for time being enforced or instrument having effect by
\n      virtue in law other than this Act. However, since both the Act and
\n      Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules provide for disclosure of
\n      information of the kind sought in the present case we find that
\n      there is nothing inconsistent in the rules. It is only that Supreme
\n      Court Rules 1966 through Order XII, Rule 2 prescribe the
\n      procedure for obtaining the information. This procedure together
\n      with fees is in the province of the prescribed authority u\/s 28 of
\n      the RTI Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Under the circumstance the CPIO, High Court of Madras has adhered
\nto the RTI Act in advising appellant Shri R. Sekar of the appropriate rules,
\nthrough which he may seek access to the information he has sought. APIO<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span>
\n Shri Nalla Chezhapati has clarified in the hearing that copies of such records
\nare available in different forms depending upon the fess that are paid. The
\nappeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant Shri R. Sekar may indeed apply for
\nthe information sought under the RTI Act, but in accordance with the relevant
\nrules as advised by PIO.\n<\/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
\n9-8-2010<\/p>\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
\n9-8-2010<\/p>\n
                                      6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/PA\/A\/2009\/000013 dated 31-12-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri R. Sekar, Respondent: High Court of Madras Decision announced in the hearing 9.8.’10 FACTS By an application of 23-2-2009 Shri R. Sekar […]<\/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-89358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-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=\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-09T05:38:08+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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T05:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2081,\"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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-09T05:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 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. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-09T05:38:08+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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T05:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010"},"wordCount":2081,"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-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010","name":"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-09T05:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-r-sekar-vs-high-court-of-madras-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. R Sekar vs High Court Of Madras on 9 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\/89358","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=89358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}