Rakia Imran
A Division-Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Supreme Court has affirmed a Bombay High Court ruling that held that requests for disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, should not be denied if they serve public interest. In the writ petition order of Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar v. Public Information Officer & Registrar dated November 11, 2024, the High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, granting access to the marks secured by all candidates, including himself, in the Junior Clerk recruitment process for the District Court, Pune.
The case before the High Court involved a candidate who was ranked and invited for an interview but was ultimately not selected. In an attempt to understand the selection criteria, he filed an RTI application seeking details about the results and the recruitment process. His request was denied on the grounds that the information was confidential. The High Court dismissed this argument, asserting that the marks obtained in a public selection process do not qualify as strictly “personal information” unrelated to public interest or activity.
The High Court held, “The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest…Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression “unwarranted”. Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual’s privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is “unwarranted invasion”.
This ruling has now been affirmed by the bench, clearly stating, “We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”
Appearances-
Petitioner: K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.; Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR; Chinmayee, Adv.; Nishant Sharma, Adv.; Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.; and Viraj M. Parakh, Adv.
Respondent: Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.; Rishabh Jain, Adv.; Bhushan, Adv.; and Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR
Case Details: Public Information Officer and Registrar & ANR v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & ANR
Citation : Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah