Supreme Court Restricts Disclosure of UPSC Exam Marks Under RTI: Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar (2018)

Date of the Judgment: February 20, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 134

Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Can unsuccessful candidates in a civil services examination demand disclosure of their raw and scaled marks under the Right to Information Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question, balancing the need for transparency with the practical concerns of maintaining the integrity of the examination process. The court held that while transparency is important, the disclosure of raw marks could undermine the examination system. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case involves several appeals filed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had directed the UPSC to disclose the raw and scaled marks of candidates who were unsuccessful in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. The respondents, who were the unsuccessful candidates, had sought this information along with cut-off marks for each subject, the scaling methodology, model answers, and the complete results of all candidates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The unsuccessful candidates initially approached the High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the UPSC to disclose the details of marks awarded to them in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010. A Single Judge of the High Court directed the UPSC to provide the information within fifteen days. This decision was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA NO.229 of 2011 in W.P.(C)NO.3316 of 2011 and Review Petition NO.486 of 2012 in LPA NO.229/2011 and Review Petition NO.484 of 2012 in W.P.(C) NO.3316/2011. The UPSC then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case is the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Supreme Court considered the following sections of the RTI Act:

• Section 3: This section grants all citizens the right to information.
• Section 4: This section mandates public authorities to provide certain information proactively.
• Section 6: This section outlines the procedure for requesting information.
• Section 8: This section provides for exemptions from disclosure of information.
• Section 9: This section provides for grounds for rejection to access information.
• Section 11: This section deals with third-party information.

The Court also referred to the Preamble of the RTI Act, which seeks to balance transparency and accountability with other public interests such as efficient operation of the Government, optimum use of fiscal resources, and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The Court emphasized that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced with other public interests.

Arguments

The main contention of the UPSC was that the High Court had not correctly appreciated the scheme of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the binding decisions of the Supreme Court. The UPSC argued that while Sections 3 and 6 of the Act confer the right to information, Sections 8, 9, and 11 provide for exemptions. It was further submitted that the exclusions provided in Sections 8, 9 and 11 are not exhaustive and the parameters under the third recital of the preamble of the Act can also be taken into account. The UPSC contended that the disclosure of raw marks and other details of the evaluation process would undermine the integrity of the examination system.

The UPSC also referred to the problems in showing evaluated answer sheets, as recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, including:

• “Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called ‘raw marks’ which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system…”
• “The evaluation process involves several stages. Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised…”
• “The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate’s mind.”
• “As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise…”
• “With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates…is real, with all its attendant implications.”
• “With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these.”
• “Some of the optional papers have very low candidature…Any such possibility of the examiner’s identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner.”
• “Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission.”

The respondents argued that the information sought was essential for transparency and accountability in the examination process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the UPSC to disclose the raw and scaled marks of candidates in the Civil Services Examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination cannot be directed mechanically. The Court emphasized the need to balance transparency with the efficient operation of the government and the confidentiality of sensitive information. The Court observed that while the RTI Act aims to promote transparency, it also recognizes the importance of other public interests. The Court held that the High Court had not applied these parameters correctly.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497: The court relied on this case to emphasize the need to balance the right to information with other public interests, stating that the RTI Act seeks to harmonize transparency and accountability with efficient governance and confidentiality of sensitive information.
• Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC, (2013) 12 SCC 489: The court referred to this case to highlight the practical problems associated with disclosing evaluated answer sheets, such as the potential for undermining the integrity of the examination system.
• Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit , (2003) 12 SCC 701: The court relied on these cases to support the method of moderation adopted by the UPSC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the examination system while also recognizing the importance of transparency. The Court’s reasoning was influenced by several factors:

• The potential for undermining the examination system if raw marks are disclosed, as highlighted in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC.
• The need to balance transparency with other public interests, such as the efficient operation of the government and the confidentiality of sensitive information, as emphasized in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.
• The practical problems associated with disclosing evaluated answer sheets, including the possibility of litigation and the erosion of trust in the examination process.

The Court quoted from Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., stating:

“The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.”

The Court also noted:

“Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation.”

The Court clarified that its decision does not prevent the respondents from making out a case on the above parameters and approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced with other public interests.
• Disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination cannot be directed mechanically.
• The Court recognized the practical problems associated with disclosing evaluated answer sheets, including the potential for undermining the integrity of the examination system.
• The judgment highlights the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive information and the efficient operation of the government.
• Unsuccessful candidates can still seek information if they can demonstrate a public interest in doing so.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The Court clarified that the respondents are not debarred from making out a case on the parameters discussed in the judgment and approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination cannot be directed mechanically under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment clarifies that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced with other public interests, such as the efficient operation of the government and the confidentiality of sensitive information. This decision reinforces the principle that the RTI Act should not be used in a way that undermines the integrity of public institutions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. clarifies the scope of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the context of public examinations. While upholding the importance of transparency, the Court recognized the need to protect the integrity of the examination system and prevent its misuse. The judgment serves as a reminder that the right to information must be balanced with other public interests and that indiscriminate disclosure of sensitive information can be counterproductive.