Prayagraj, March 10 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that information about marks in public examinations is not confidential and does not require the consent of a 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 the Union of India through GM, Diesel Locomotive and another, a division bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held, "The marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate, who has also participated in the examination, is not such confidential private information which may require even the consent of that third party under section eight of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
"Well, of course, if an outsider seeks information, the department may take a valid defense of confidentiality. However, regarding photocopies of the answer sheets, it may involve checking of the answer sheets, signatures of examiners, etc., and therefore, it may not be appropriate to disclose the names and signatures of the examiners," the court added.
A test was conducted by the Railways for the post of Legal Assistant. In 2008, one Santosh Kumar applied under the RTI Act to obtain information on the marks awarded to three candidates, including himself, and their mark sheets.
The marks were not provided, but the applicant was allowed to review 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.
Although the marks were revealed, the general manager (GM), Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, filed a review against the direction to provide the 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 GM, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
The court, in its judgment dated February 26, observed that any personal information that is not related to any public activity or public interest may not be disclosed under the RTI Act, as it may cause unnecessary invasion of privacy.
It held that where the information does cause an invasion of privacy, it must be disclosed in the public interest.
The court held that providing informative marks in a public examination was not an invasion of a candidate's privacy. 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 context, 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.