VISITORS

Tuesday, 16 January 2018

Misuse of Court by UPSC by relitigation on Same issue about providing Xerox of answer-sheets under RTI which is already set CASE LAW in Aditya Bandopadhyay v/s CBSE.

WHY SUPREME COURT IS DELAYING DECISION ON ITS ALREADY ESTABLISHED CASE LAW  ??????
 Supreme court judges helps executive to manage the fraud by delaying cases of youths years together ,so that they will get frustate with dealy in getting justice........ Ironically, same judges are now saying that democracy is under threat in India ?




* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th July, 2012 + LPA No.229/2011 % UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ....Appellant Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik & Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. Versus ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Respondent No.2 in person. Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv. for R-13. AND + W.P.(C) NO.3316/2011 % DURGESH KUMAR TRIPATHI & ORS. ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Devendra Sharma, petitioner No.3 in person. Versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR... Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik & Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. Mr. Mohit Jolly, Adv. for R-2. CORAM :- HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 2 of 13 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. LPA No.229/2011 impugns the order dated 04.02.2011of the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.51/2011 preferred by the respondents seeking review of the order dated 13.01.2011 disposing of W.P.(C) No.218/2011 preferred by the respondents. 2. The twelve respondents in LPA No.229/2011 had appeared in the Civil Services Preliminary Examination held on 23.05.2010 by the appellant Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and were unsuccessful therein. They sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and which information was denied to them by the Public Information Officer of the appellant UPSC. Aggrieved therefrom, they filed W.P.(C) No.6931/2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2010 on account of pendency then of SLP No.23250/2008 preferred by the appellant UPSC before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 03.09.2008 of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.313/2007 titled UPSC Vs. Shiv Shambhu entailing the same question. The respondents thereafter filed SLP No.32443/2010 to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2010 dismissed SLP No.23250/2008 of the UPSC, for the reason of the change effected by the UPSC in the pattern of examination with effect LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 3 of 13 from the year 2011. Thereafter the Supreme Court vide order dated 03.12.2010 disposed of the SLPNo.32443/2010 preferred by the respondents observing that since SLP No.23250/2008 against the judgment dated 03.09.2008 of the Division Bench of this Court had been dismissed though as infructuous, the case of the respondents herein will also be governed by the said judgment dated 03.09.2008. 3. The respondents on the basis of said order dated 03.12.2010 of the Supreme Court again sought the information from the appellant UPSC and upon not meeting with any success, filed W.P.(C) No.218/2011, from which this appeal arises, seeking a direction to the appellant UPSC to disclose the following information: (i) details of marks (raw and scaled marks) obtained by the selected candidates in their respective optional subjects of the Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2010; (ii) details of the marks (raw and scaled) obtained by the respondents themselves in the said examination; (iii) the cut off marks of each optional subject in the said examination. LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 4 of 13 4. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2011 observing, finding and holding as under: (i) that in view of the respondents having earlier applied under the RTI Act for the information and having thereafter preferred a writ petition in this Court and SLP in the Supreme Court, the respondents were not required to again follow the procedure under the RTI Act; (ii) that the law having been settled by the Supreme Court, there was no need to relegate the respondents to the process under the RTI Act; (iii) On the plea of the counsel for the appellant UPSC that raw marks were not available and thus could not be disclosed and that model answers were available only for some of the questions, it was observed that whatsoever was not available with the UPSC need not be disclosed; (iv) no prejudice would be caused to anyone by disclosure of the result of the candidates who had qualified; LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 5 of 13 (v) that the model answers as available with the UPSC were also liable to disclosure, in accordance with the various dictas on the subject. The appellant UPSC was accordingly directed to make the disclosure. 5. The respondents filed an application for review of the aforesaid order primarily challenging the statement of the counsel for the appellant UPSC that raw marks and the model answers for all the questions were not available. It was their contention that the appellant UPSC as per its rules was required to maintain the same for the prescribed period and which period had not expired. 6. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 04.02.2011 on the said review application observed, found & held: (i) that the marks as appearing on the answer sheets are raw marks; (ii) that the answers sheets are required to be preserved for one year and thus the raw marks ought to be available with the UPSC; (iii) the contention of the appellant UPSC that raw marks did not subsist upon being scaled and thus could not be disclosed was LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 6 of 13 rejected. It was held that the raw marks have to be necessarily available; (iv) that since all the questions in the examination were of objective type, there could be no possibility of the model answers of any of them being not available; UPSC was accordingly directed to disclose the raw marks as well as the model answers of the questions in the examination. 7. Notice of this appeal was issued and the operation of the order dated 04.02.2011 of the learned Single Judge stayed. 8. W.P.(C) No.3316/2011 is filed, also seeking a direction to the UPSC to disclose the same information as subject matter of LPA No.229/2011 relating to the same examination and qua the nine petitioners therein. While the said petition was pending before the learned Single Judge, it was pointed out that the controversy therein was the same as in LPA No.229/2011. Accordingly the said writ petition was transferred to this Bench and the counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition has raised the same arguments as the counsel for the respondents in the LPA. 9. As would be apparent from the above, the respondents prior to filing the writ petition from which this appeal arises had filed a writ petition for LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 7 of 13 the same relief but which writ petition was dismissed owing to the question entailed therein pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No.23250/2008 preferred by the appellant; the respondents also had then preferred SLP No.32443/2010 and which SLP as aforesaid was disposed of with a direction that the respondents would be entitled to the same relief as given by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.09.2008 in LPA No.313/2007. It thus becomes necessary to first examine the said LPA No.313/2007. The same was preferred against the judgment dated 17.04.2007 of the Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17583/2006. In the said writ petition also, the same disclosure as in the present proceedings was sought from the UPSC, though pertaining to the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2006 and UPSC had contested the demand for such disclosure on the same grounds as being urged herein. 10. It is the case of UPSC, that the Civil Services Examination comprises of two parts, i.e. the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination which is followed by interview; that the Preliminary Examination is in the nature of a screening test to select twelve to thirteen times the number of vacancies in the order of merit; that the Preliminary Examination comprises LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 8 of 13 of two papers, one of General Studies which is compulsory and an optional paper from out of 23 subjects offered; that since different examinees opt for different optional paper, UPSC has developed a methodology to make the marks obtained in each subject comparable; through this methodology, scaling of marks is done so that the marks obtained in different subjects are comparable with each other; scientific formula is used for such scaling of marks; said scientific formula has been further changed and modified by the experience, to suit the needs and requirement of UPSC; that insofar as the marks of compulsory subject are concerned, no scaling is applied; that prior to the examination, no cut offs can be presumed and the cut offs that are implemented are only post examination; the marks in the Preliminary Examination are not counted in the Main Examination. 11. It is further the plea of UPSC that revealing the cut off marks and the keys to the question papers would enable unscrupulous persons to engineer and arrive at the scaling system which is kept secret by the UPSC; that if the scaling system adopted by the UPSC is disclosed, then the entire system would be undermined and defeat the selection. LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 9 of 13 12. The learned Single Judge in judgment dated 17.04.2007 in W.P.(C) No.17583/2006 found, observed and held, that the UPSC in a counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court had already disclosed the scaling method adopted by it and thus the said scaling method could no longer be said to be secret or confidential; that there was no merit in the contention of UPSC that disclosure of cut off marks would undermine the selection process; that the disclosure of cut off marks of one year would not effect the examination of a subsequent year which is independent; that the data of one year has no bearing on the following years. Accordingly, holding that the scaling method already stood disclosed and there was no bar to the disclosure of the cut off marks and the model answers, direction for disclosure thereof was issued. 13. UPSC, as aforesaid preferred LPA No.313/2007 against the aforesaid judgment and which was dismissed on 03.09.2008. The SLP No.23250/2008 preferred by the UPSC to the Supreme Court has also been dismissed though as infructuous but without setting aside the judgments dated 17.04.2007 and 03.09.2008 (supra) of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court. Rather, when SLP No.32443/2010 preferred LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 10 of 13 by the respondents came up before the Supreme Court, the same was disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall be entitled to the relief as given by the High Court in the said judgments. 14. In the aforesaid factual scenario, we are unable to find any scope for further adjudication inasmuch as the Supreme Court has already directed the information as aforesaid to be supplied to the respondents. Once it is held that the UPSC is bound to supply the said information, W.P.(C) No.3316/2011 will also have to be allowed inasmuch as the same information is sought therein. Though undoubtedly the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3316/2011 ought to have first followed the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act but the petition having been entertained and having remained pending in this Court and this Court being required to adjudicate the controversy in any case in LPA No.229/2011, need is not felt to at this stage relegate the petitioners to following the procedure under the RTI Act. 15. The counsel for the UPSC before us has also urged that raw marks are an intermediary stage and ought not to be treated as information and only after scaling / actualization can the marks scored be computed and UPSC is not liable to disclose such intermediary marks. It is also argued that the LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 11 of 13 counter affidavit in the Supreme Court on the basis whereof it has been held that the method of scaling already stands disclosed, does not in fact disclose the same and the scaling system is thus not in public domain. 16. We are afraid, the latter of the aforesaid argument cannot be entertained at least before this Court. The Single Judge in judgment dated 17.04.2007 (supra) held that the method of scaling stood disclosed in the counter affidavit in the Supreme Court and we do not find any argument to have been raised by UPSC before the Division Bench that the method of scaling had not been so disclosed. There is no discussion whatsoever in the judgment dated 03.09.2008 of the Division Bench in this regard. Again, if it was the case of UPSC that the method of scaling had not been disclosed and this Court had wrongly presumed the same to have been disclosed, the UPSC ought not to have got its SLP dismissed as infructuous and ought to have got the said matter adjudicated by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, the Supreme Court by dismissal of the SLP of the UPSC and by order dated 03.12.2010 in the SLP of the respondents has expressly directed the disclosure of the method of scaling. After the matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court, through speaking order, it is not for this Court to reexamine the same. LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 12 of 13 17. We are even otherwise of the view that there could be no secrecy or confidentiality about the method of scaling / actualization adopted by an examiner. The very objective of the RTI Act is transparency and accountability. The counsel for the UPSC has been unable to show as to how the disclosure of the scaling / actualization method prejudices the examination or affects it competitiveness. The Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C. Vs. Subhash Chandra Dixit AIR (2004) SC 163 approved of the practice of scaling / actualization, though in the subsequent decision in Sanjay Singh Vs. U.P.P.S.C. AIR (2007) SC 950, certain reservations were expressed with respect thereto. Be that as it may, though the non-disclosure of the method devised for scaling / actualization till declaration of the result may be justified, it cannot be said to be justified after the result is declared. The Supreme Court in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 has held that the answer scripts and the answer keys are liable to disclosure after the result of the examination has been declared. If it were to be held that there is any secrecy / confidentiality about the raw marks and the method of scaling, the possibility of errors therein or the same being manipulated cannot be ruled out. An examinee is entitled to satisfy himself / herself as to the fairness LPA No.229/2011 & WP(C) No.3316/2011 Page 13 of 13 and transparency of the examination and the selection procedure and to maintain such fairness and transparency disclosure of raw marks, cut off marks and the scaling method adopted is a must. 18. We therefore do not find any merit in LPA No.229/2011and dismiss the same. Axiomatically, W.P.(C) No.3316/2011 is allowed and the UPSC is directed to within eight weeks hereof disclose the information sought therein. 19. Though UPSC has indulged in re-litigation but giving benefit of doubt to UPSC that the resistance to disclosure is an after effect of the preRTI era, we refrain from imposing any costs on UPSC. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 13 , 2012

Monday, 18 April 2016

UPSC is doing contempt of Supreme Court & Supreme Court is doing contempt of people.Are they hand in glove ?

UPSC is doing contempt of Supreme Court by not providing xerox of answersheets under RTI and Supreme Court is doing Contempt of People by not acting against such contempt and helping UPSC by again accepting same SLP where already it had given categorical decisions regarding providing xerox of answersheets under RTI and delaying matter since 6-7 yrs . Whether Supreme Court judges are hand in glove with UPSC .Are they getting some benefit from UPSC ? We need to keep watch on IAS/IPS result how many relatives of judges are getting selected in these exams ? How many High Court jugdes are getting selected as supreme court judges who help UPSC to delay the cases going against UPSC and giving wrong decisions inspite of all documentary proofs against UPSC and thus delaying matter and ruining careers of lakhs of aspiring students..........

Saturday, 13 February 2016

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT SAYING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAVE TO PROVIDE XEROX/SCAN COPIES ANSWERSHEETS TO STUDENTS UNDER RTI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.823-854 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 15919- 15950 of 2011) Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants Versus The State Information Commission & Anr. ….Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5433 of 2014) Public Service Commission U.P. …..Appellant Versus Raghvendra Singh .. Respondent J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J. Leave granted. 2. In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held that the respondents are entitled not only to get information with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet, 1 Page 2 tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet. 3. The information sought for by the respondents were denied by the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority. However, the State Information Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there is no fiduciary relationship in case of answer scripts. Further, the interview marks cannot be considered as personal information, since the public authority had already decided to publish them. 4. Both the High Courts of Kerala and Allahabad have taken the view, following the earlier decisions of this Court that no fiduciary relationship exists between the appellants and the respondents and, therefore, the information sought for have to be supplied to them. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments passed by the 2 Page 3 Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and Allahabad. 6. So far as the information sought for by the respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of law and the same is fully justified. However, the view of the Kerala High Court is that the information seekers are also entitled to get the disclosure of names of examiners who have evaluated the answer-sheet. 7. The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot be sustained in law. The Kerala High Court while observing held:- “16.What, if any , is the fiduciary relationship of the PSC qua the examinees? Performance audit of constitutional institutions would only 3 Page 4 strengthen the confidence of the citizenry in such institutions. The PSC is a constitutional institution. To stand above board, is one of its own prime requirements. There is nothing that should deter disclosure of the contents of the materials that the examinees provide as part of their performance in the competition for being selected to public service. The confidence that may be reposed by the examinees in the institution of the PSC does not inspire the acceptability of a fiduciary relationship that should kindle the exclusion of information in relation to the evalution or other details relating to the examination. Once the evaluation is over and results are declared, no more secrecy is called for. Dissemination of such information would only add to the credibility of the PSC, in the constitutional conspectus in which it is placed. A particular examinee would therefore be entitled to access to information in relation to that person’s answer scripts. As regards others, information in relation to answer scripts may fall within the pale of “third party information” in terms of section 11 of the RTI Act. This only means that such information cannot be accessed except in conformity with the provisions contained in section 11. It does not, in any manner, provide for any immunity from access. 17. We shall now examine the next contention of PSC that there is a fiduciary relationship between it and the examiners and as a consequence, it is eligible to claim protection from disclosure, except with the sanction of the competent authority, as regards the identity of the examiners as also the materials that were subjected to the examination. We have already approved TREESA and the different precedents and commentaries relied on therein as regards the concept of fiduciary relationship. We are in full agreement with the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science 4 Page 5 Studies (supra), that S.8 (1)(e) deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another; that information under this head is nothing but information in trust, which, but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. What is it that the PSC holds in trust for the examiners? Nothing. At the best, it could be pointed out that the identity of the examiners has to be insulated from public gaze, having regard to issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to corruption if the identities of the examiners are disclosed in advance. But, at any rate, such issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the publication of the results. Therefore, it would not be in public interest to hold that there could be a continued secrecy even as regards the identity of the examiners. Access to such information, including as to the identity of the examiners, after the examination and evaluation process are over, cannot be shied off under any law or avowed principle of privacy.” 8. We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of names of the examiners. 9. In the present case, the PSC has taken upon itself in appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principalagent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal 5 Page 6 has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by the PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between the PSC and the Examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we don’t see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of Examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner’s identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner’s identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect to the second question. 6 Page 7 10. In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the Examiners have faith that 7 Page 8 they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same state or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam. 11. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the judgment only to the extent that the respondents-applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of names of the examiners as sought for by them. …………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal) …………………………….J. (Arun Mishra) New Delhi February 4, 2016 

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF XEROX COPY OF ANSWERSHEET AND RAW/MODERATED MARKS IN UPSC EXAM WILL MOST PROBABALY DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT ON 11/11/2014


Court No. 6


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA



.C.A. No. 5924/2013JOINT DIRECTOR AND CPIO & ANR.
Vs.
T.R.RAJESH
MR. GAURAV AGRAWAL
MS. BINU TAMTA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSON
MR. RENJITH. B
MRS. SUDHA GUPTA
MR. VIKRANT SINGH BAIS
WITH
C.A. No. 6159/2013U.P.S.C. ETC.
Vs.
ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
MS. BINU TAMTA
PETITIONER-IN-PERSONCAVEATOR-IN-PERSON
MR. JAGDISH KUMAR CHAWLA
MR. MUNAWWAR NASEEM
MR. PANKAJ KUMAR
MR. SUMIT KUMAR
MR. VIKRANT SINGH BAIS
RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16680/2014UPSC
Vs.
MADHULIKA KUMARI
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16529/2014UPSC
Vs.
PRANJALYA PARTH LATHE
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16656/2014UPSC
Vs.
SHRI J ARUN KUMAR
MS. BINU TAMTA
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16670/2014UPSC
Vs.
ANKIT KUMAR
MS. BINU TAMTA

S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 16632/2014UPSC
Vs.
RAVI KANT NIRALA
MS. BINU TAMTA

Friday, 4 July 2014

AAJ TAK exposes fraud in UP PSC under the name of scaling. SAME FRAUD IS BEING DONE IN UPSC'S CIVIL SERVICES EXAM , AND THEY CALL IT AS STATISTICAL MODERATION.

Whatever AAJ TAK is showing today on its channel regarding fraud in UPPSC under the name of scaling . same fraud is done in UPSC's Civil Services Exam. We have given proofs  to India Today Group. Even they have published in India Today (PLEASE SEE post 'INDIA TODAY' EXPOSES  FRAUD IN IAS/IPS exam http://tsanewindia.blogspot.in/2011/12/india-today-exposes-fraud-in-iasips.html. )

Only here difference is that some other group is getting its benefit. Media Friends told us that Uparase bahut pressure hai ye news dabaneke liye.......
http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/sting-operation-uppsc-accused-of-favouring-a-particular-caste-1-770219.html


Saturday, 20 July 2013

cases going against UPSC in Supreme Court regarding civil services exam

1.UPSC vs Angesh kumar
2.UPSC vs T.R.Rajesh


    Civil Appeal     5924/2013          

STATUS      PENDING
Cause Title
JOINT DIRECTOR AND CPIO & ANR.
Vs.
T.R.RAJESH
Advocate Details
 Pet. Adv.MS. BINU TAMTA
 Res. Adv.MR. RENJITH. B

Subject Category
SERVICE MATTERS RECRUITMENT/TRANSFER/COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

Listing Details
Last Listed on03/09/2013
  Designed,Developed and Maintained by NIC Computer Cell,Supreme Court of India
 Print PDF
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp