Marks In Public Recruitment Exams Not Confidential, Can Be Disclosed Under RTI Act Without Third-Party Consent: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that information on marks in public exams is not confidential information and does not require consent of the third party, whose marks are sought by the RTI applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by...
The Allahabad High Court has held that information on marks in public exams is not confidential information and does not require consent of the third party, whose marks are sought by the RTI applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of confidentiality. However, on the question of photocopies of the answer sheets, it may involve checking of answer sheets, signatures of examiners etc. and therefore, it may not be appropriate to disclose the names, signatures of the examiners and for that purpose therefore, if the authority directs the applicants seeking information to peruse the answer sheets, it would suffice the need. There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain the photocopies of answer sheets of another candidate, however, he can always ask for the photocopy of his own answer sheet.”
A test was held by the Railways for the post of Legal Assistant. In 2008, one Santosh Kumar applied under the RTI Act for obtaining information on marks awarded to 3 candidates, including himself and their marksheets. The marks were not provided but the applicant was allowed to peruse the answer-sheets on any given day. This order was appealed before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, who directed that photocopies of the answer sheets be provided to the applicant.
Though the marks were revealed, the G.M., Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi filed a review against the direction to provide answer sheets. The review was dismissed stating that the Indian Railways is a Public Authority bound to supply such information. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the G.M., Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
The Court observed that any personal information, which is not related to any public activity or public interest may not be given out under the RTI Act as it may cause unnecessary invasion of privacy. It held that where the information does cause invasion of privacy and can be disclosed in public interest must be disclosed.
Perusing Section 11 of the RTI Act, the Court observed,
“it goes clear that sufficient safeguards have been provided in the event any third party information is sought and in such circumstances, the authority, which is under the obligation to give information shall be giving notice to that third party to give its reply before the information is given. The main threat is on the confidentiality of information on the principle of right to privacy.”
It held that any private information may not be disclosed unless it is paramount to disclose the same in public interest. Noting that public interest and public activity are not defined under the RTI Act, the Court held
“Public interest normally in general could be where the common man's interest in particular affairs may be not an individual interest but relating to society or otherwise a class or a group which can be classified for a limited extent with reference to subject matter for which the information relates to. Public activity is also in our considered view relates to substantial public interest involved where public at large gets affected. So in a matter where in general a public interest may be involved, the information must be given as a realm. The object of the Act is to give information subject to the riders created under Section 8. So wherever there is public interest involved and there is absolutely no private information sought for, the endeavour of the authority would be to furnish the information sought for.”
The Court held that giving out informing marks in a public exam was not invading privacy of a candidate. It held that such information could have been withheld if any inquiry was pending, but could be withheld only during such inquiry. It held that such an examination was a public activity and the information on marks was to be disclosed in public interest.
However, regarding providing photocopies of the answer sheets, the Court held that authority could not be compelled to supply the photocopies as it would disclose various other information which may not be in the public domain. It held that rules regarding supply of photocopies of the answer sheets may be framed by various departments.
“We may further observe that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied. It may not be necessary always to provide the copies of the official records/ documents which the department considers would neither be necessary nor, would serve any purpose practically for which the information has been sought. If sufficient information is there and perusal of records is permitted, it should suffice the need qua mandate contained under the Act, 2005.”
Accordingly, the Court held that where the marks sought by the applicant were to be provided, photocopies of the answer sheets could not be demanded as a matter of right and were not required to be provided.
Case Title: Union Of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive And Another Versus Central Information Commission New Delhi And Others