Publishing Exam Answer Scripts Would Intrude Into Candidates' Privacy: MP High Court Rejects PIL Seeking "Transparency" In Civil Judge Selection Process

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a petition filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to make available answer scripts of all the candidates who appeared for the Mains written examination of the lower judiciary exam in the State. Rejecting the contentions raised by the Petitioner, the division bench comprising of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D.D. Bansal observed that making the answer sheets of a candidate available in public domain would violate their right to privacy and would also be against public interest- Free access to information in public domain is ostensibly an attractive proposition but is not viable in view of the aforesaid complications. The complications and difficulties with the said proposition of the petitioner would jeopardize the working of the examining body and therefore would be against the public interest and counter-productive. The disadvantages of disclosure of contents of answer sheets in public domain far out number the advantages. The Petitioner in the instant petition had contended that for achieving the ultimate goal of transparency in the process of selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) and District Judge (Entry Level) in the State, the answer copies written by all the candidates be made available on website of the Court. They further sought for directions of the Court to declare the relevant provisions of the notification for the said exam as null and void which restricted the supply of answer copies to only the candidate concerned who applies for the same. The Petitioner submitted before the Court that making available the answer copies of all the candidates who appeared in the said examination on the website of the Court would not offend the exemption clause U/S 8 of the RTI Act. It was further argued that the same would not only enhance transparency but would also be academically enriching for prospective candidates who may appear in the subsequent examinations to be held in future. Per contra, the Respondent submitted that it would neither be in public interest nor in the interest of academics that all the answer copies be uploaded on the Court's website. It was further asserted that the information contained in a particular answer copy was privy to the respective candidate, which couldn't be made public in view of the bar contained U/S 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It was also submitted that disclosure of contents of the answer sheets to everyone shall be tantamount to invasion of privacy of the respective candidate. Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court analysed the case of the Petitioner within the framework of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. It noted the following: The contents of an answer sheet written by a particular candidate contains information privy and personal to the said candidate and, therefore, any disclosure of the same to the public at large can be permitted only when the candidate concerned has no objection.The disclosure of contents of an answer sheet of a candidate in public domain will invite number of complications which include intrusion into the privacy of the candidate concerned, the examining body being compelled to indulge in innumerable applications thereby opening pandora's box which may be difficult to control and manage, etc.That disclosure of answer sheets in public domain is susceptible to the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing the candidate to apply for answer copies under the RTI). That answer copy contains information personal to the candidate which cannot be disclosed without consent of the candidate concerned or the public interest outweighs the personal interest, which is not the case herein. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. CASE TITLE: ADVOCATE UNION FOR DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE VERSUS HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 202 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Publishing Exam Answer Scripts Would Intrude Into Candidates' Privacy: MP High Court Rejects PIL Seeking "Transparency" In Civil Judge Selection Process

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags