2010 (8) TMI 748 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether valued answer sheets of an examination returned to a public authority by the examiner entrusted with the task of valuation, is information exempted from disclosure under any of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 after the results of the examination are published - University may not be treated as situated in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. University is, no doubt, to discharge statutory functions and one of its functions is to conduct examinations. But a person, who has been entrusted with the valuation of an answer script, by the University, enjoys a position of trust and there would come into existence a fiduciary relationship between the University and the valuer of the answer script, in the context of the valuation of the answer script of an examinee, matter refered for consideration of a Division Bench

Issues Involved:
- Whether valued answer sheets of an examination returned to a public authority by the examiner are exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
- Whether there is a fiduciary relationship between the public authority and the examiner.
- Whether the information sought is personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.
- Whether the refusal to disclose the information on the grounds of lack of public interest and potential compromise of the selection process is valid.
- Whether the disclosure of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption of Valued Answer Sheets from Disclosure:
The core question was whether valued answer sheets, after being returned to a public authority by the examiner, are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court emphasized that the Right to Information is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, as recognized by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raj Narain and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. The Act establishes the machinery for supplying information when a citizen exercises this right.

2. Fiduciary Relationship Between Public Authority and Examiner:
The court examined whether a fiduciary relationship exists between the public authority and the examiner. It referred to various legal definitions and precedents to conclude that a fiduciary relationship involves trust, confidence, and a duty to act for the benefit of another. The court found that the relationship between the public authority and the examiner does not meet these criteria. The examiner's role is to evaluate answer sheets, and the public authority's role is to manage the examination process. After the results are published, neither party has discretion or power over the other, except to keep the examiner's identity confidential. Therefore, no fiduciary relationship exists that would exempt the answer sheets from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e).

3. Personal Information Exemption under Section 8(1)(j):
The court addressed whether the information sought is personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j). It referred to the decision in Canara Bank v. Central Information Commission, which held that personal information that does not benefit anyone else or invades privacy can be exempt. However, the court noted that the valued answer sheet is related to the candidate's performance in a public examination, which is a public activity. The candidate has a right to know whether their answer sheet was evaluated correctly. Therefore, the information sought does not qualify as personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j).

4. Refusal Based on Lack of Public Interest and Compromise of Selection Process:
The court found that the reasons given for refusing the information, such as lack of public interest and potential compromise of the selection process, were unsustainable. It emphasized that transparency in the valuation process is in the larger public interest and enhances the fairness and impartiality of the selection process. The court noted that withholding information on these grounds contradicts the spirit of the Right to Information Act.

5. Disproportionate Diversion of Resources:
The court addressed the argument that disclosing the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9). It clarified that this section does not provide grounds for withholding information but only allows the public authority to provide information in a different form if the requested form would disproportionately divert resources. The court emphasized that the difficulties in providing information do not justify denying it, and the public authority is obligated to disclose the information unless it is exempt under the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the valued answer sheets are not exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. It directed the respondents to provide the petitioner with a copy of the valued answer sheet, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in public examinations. The court also criticized the representation of the Central Information Commission by the first respondent and suggested that the Commission should act independently in future cases.

← Previous Next →