RTI privacy vs public results: Allahabad High Court answers if you can see other candidate’s examination marks

What was the case about?

• The dispute arose after a railway employee who had appeared in a written examination for the post of legal assistant held by the Railways sought some information under RTI.
• In his application, he requested the marks obtained by himself and two other candidates, along with photocopies of their answer sheets.
• While the public information officer provided a copy of the question paper, the request for photocopies of answer sheets and disclosure of marks was initially declined.
• The applicant was, however, allowed to inspect the answer sheets.
• Following an appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Railways to provide photocopies of the answer sheets.
• The Railways later disclosed the marks of the three candidates but challenged the CIC’s direction to supply the answer sheet copies, arguing that such disclosure could be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act relating to personal information.

Court’s observations

• It is true that if a candidate seeks information about another candidate’s marks, then it becomes third-party information, and therefore, Rule 11 (third-party information) of the Act gets attracted. However, the information must be such in nature that if disclosed, it would cause damage in terms of the privacy of the third party.
• In this case, the information required is related to a public examination for the post of Legal Assistant.
• The information was sought regarding marks obtained, and we fail to understand as to how this information is private information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a candidate.
• All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared.
• While it may be true that for a certain period an information may be withheld in a matter where any investigation or enquiry is pending and marks have not been disclosed, but where no investigation or enquiry is pending such an information, if sought for under the RTI Act, such information can always be provided.
• 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.

• 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.
• The purpose of a candidate seeking information in such competitive examination can be understood as a curiosity to know how many marks he has obtained and whether his answer sheet is correctly examined or not, inasmuch as, the perusal of other candidate’s answer sheet can also be helpful to him but in no case we can compel an authority to supply the photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates.
• On the count of furnishing marks of other desired candidates, the judgment and order passed by the CIC cannot be faulted with, nor do we find any manifest error in the order dismissing the review petition.
• Sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to be reversed.
• The orders passed by the CIC and the Information Commission are quashed to the extent they directed the supply of photocopies of answer sheets.