The Allahabad High Court has held that information about marks in public examinations is not confidential and it does not require consent of the third party whose marks are sought by the RTI applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
While partly allowing a writ petition filed by Union of India through GM, Diesel Locomotive and another, a division bench comprising 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 eight of right to information Act, 2005.”
“Well, of course, if an outsider seeks information, the 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,” the court added.
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 three 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, which directed that photocopies of the answer sheets be provided to the applicant.
Though the marks were revealed, the general manager (GM), Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi filed a review against the direction to provide answer sheets.
The review was dismissed saying the Indian Railways is a public authority bound to supply such information. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the GM, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
The court in its judgment dated February 26 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, it must be disclosed in the public interest.
The court held that giving out informative marks in a public exam was not invading the privacy of a candidate. It held that such information could have been withheld if any inquiry was pending.
However, regarding providing photocopies of the answer sheets, the court held that an authority could not be compelled to supply the photocopies as it would disclose various other information which may not be in the public domain.
“We may further observe that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied.
In this backdrop, the court held that where the marks sought by the applicant were to be provided but the photocopies of the answer sheets could not be demanded as a matter of right and were not required to be provided.
