2008 (9) TMI 995 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of CIC as a respondent.
2. Disclosure of information under RTI Act.
3. Scaling methodology and its implications.
4. Impact of disclosure on examination integrity.

Summary:

1. Deletion of CIC as a Respondent:
The court directed the deletion of the Central Information Commission (CIC) as a respondent, emphasizing that a judicial or quasi-judicial body whose order is challenged should not be impleaded as a party respondent unless malafides are alleged against an individual member.

2. Disclosure of Information under RTI Act:
The respondents, who were candidates of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2006, sought information from the UPSC including cut-off marks, individual marks, and model answers. The UPSC declined to provide this information citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, claiming it constituted "crucial secrets and intellectual property" and its disclosure would harm the integrity of the examination system. The CIC, however, directed the UPSC to disclose the requested information, stating that larger public interest warranted such disclosure.

3. Scaling Methodology and Its Implications:
The UPSC argued that revealing the cut-off marks, individual marks, and key answers would enable candidates to reverse engineer the scaling system, undermining the selection process. The learned Single Judge found that the scaling methodology had already been disclosed by the UPSC in a counter affidavit filed in the Supreme Court and thus was in the public domain. The court held that the cut-off mark would change each year and the scaling methodology would account for any abnormalities caused by dummy candidates.

4. Impact of Disclosure on Examination Integrity:
The UPSC expressed concerns that coaching institutes could manipulate future examinations by fielding dummy candidates. The court rejected this argument, stating it was impossible for coaching institutes to predict the difficulty levels of future exams and plant dummy candidates effectively. The court emphasized that the preliminary examination is only a screening test and the main examination and interview ensure the selection of meritorious candidates.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the learned Single Judge's order, directing the UPSC to disclose the requested information except for the combined total of raw General Studies marks and scaled optional paper marks. The appeal and application were dismissed, and the stay order was vacated.