Case name
lissing perme
(Querist) 03 June 2012
This query is : Resolved
Respected experts,
Following are the extract from paper
"Marks of candidates in public exam is public document: HC PTI Nov 30, 2008, 10.02am IST
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has said that marks obtained by successful candidates in examination conducted by government body is a public document and it should be revealed under RTI Act.
"Once the examination is over and candidates are declared successful, it becomes a public document which can be revealed under Right to Information Act," Justice G S Sistani said.
The court's observation came while hearing a petition filed by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) challenging CIC order which had directed the Commission to reveal the marks obtained by successful candidates in civil services to a third party."
Please somebody tell me the case name and number of above case, any what has been the faith oft this case and anybody have copy of judgment copy of above case please upload here.
Thanks in advance
ajay sethi
(Expert) 03 June 2012
Evaluated Answer scripts are not confidential: A landmark judgement
BANGALORE: In a landmark decision, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that evaluated answer scripts should be made available to anybody who wishes to see them and cannot be kept confidential for the benefit of the examiners.
The commission has ordered the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to make available the answerscripts free of cost to applicant E Ramamurthy, who sought copies of four answer scripts of the Gazetted Probationers Examinations, 1998.
State chief information commissioner K K Misra and state information officer K A Thippeswamy have rejected the KPSC's plea, which said that answer scripts cannot be made public as they are exempted under Sec 8 (i) (e) and 8 (i) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is clear that KPSC as the owner of the information (including the answer scripts and the marks awarded) is under no responsibility or obligation to keep it confidential in trust and for the benefit of the examiners. Opening up of the evaluation process including making the evaluated answer books available to anyone, who wishes to see them is very much necessary as a confidence building measure and reviving the faith of citizens in these august institutions. KIC observed.
More importantly, it has rejected the Central Information Commission's decision under Section 8 (i) (j) saying that seeking evaluated answer papers either his/her own or others is purely personal and has no relationship to any public interest or activity. "This view does not appear correct to this commission.
Although the applicant is not to be asked the purpose for seeking information, in the present case, providing the information would ensure the impartiality, objectivity, and fairness of the evaluation by examiners appointed by public services commissions whose purpose incidentally is of utmost concern to the people," it stated.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 03 June 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009]
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. … Appellants
Vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. … Respondents
With
CA No. 6456 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.9755 of 2009)
CA Nos.6457-6458 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) Nos.11162-11163 of 2009)
CA No.6461 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.11670 of 2009)
CA Nos.6462 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.13673 of 2009)
CA Nos.6464 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.17409 of 2009)
CA Nos. 6459 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.9776 of 2010)
CA Nos.6465-6468 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) Nos.30858-30861 of 2009)
J U D G M E N T
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.Section 19(8) of RTI Act has entrusted the Central/State Information
Commissions, with the power to require any public authority to take any
such steps as may be necessary to secure the compliance with the provisions
of the Act. Apart from the generality of the said power, clause (a) of section
19(8) refers to six specific powers, to implement the provision of the Act.
Sub-clause (i) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to
provide access to information if so requested in a particular ‘form’ (that is
either as a document, micro film, compact disc, pendrive, etc.). This is to
secure compliance with section 7(9) of the Act. Sub-clause (ii) empowers a
Commission to require the public authority to appoint a Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer. This is to secure
compliance with section 5 of the Act. Sub-clause (iii) empowers the
Commission to require a public authority to publish certain information or
categories of information. This is to secure compliance with section 4(1) and
(2) of RTI Act. Sub-clause (iv) empowers a Commission to require a public
50
authority to make necessary changes to its practices relating to the
maintenance, management and destruction of the records. This is to secure
compliance with clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act. Sub-clause (v)
empowers a Commission to require the public authority to increase the
training for its officials on the right to information. This is to secure
compliance with sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. Sub-clause (vi) empowers a
Commission to require the public authority to provide annual reports in
regard to the compliance with clause (b) of section 4(1). This is to ensure
compliance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act. The
power under section 19(8) of the Act however does not extend to requiring a
public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to
secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions
beyond the provisions of the Act. The power under section 19(8) of the Act
is intended to be used by the Commissions to ensure compliance with the
Act, in particular ensure that every public authority maintains its records
duly catalogued and indexed in the manner and in the form which facilitates
the right to information and ensure that the records are computerized, as
required under clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act; and to ensure that the
information enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of sections 4(1) of the Act are
published and disseminated, and are periodically updated as provided in sub-
51
sections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act. If the ‘information’ enumerated
in clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act are effectively disseminated (by
publications in print and on websites and other effective means), apart from
providing transparency and accountability, citizens will be able to access
relevant information and avoid unnecessary applications for information
under the Act.
37.The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to
information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible
citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability.
The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should
be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of
section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and
accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than
those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance
and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of
sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation
of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions
under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and
52
eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely
affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting
bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing
information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to
become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to
destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it
be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials
striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of
the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public
authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal
and regular duties.
Conclusion
38. In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the
examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer
books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI
53
Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which ‘information’ should
be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
……………………….J
[R. V. Raveendran]
……………………….J
[A. K. Patnaik]
New Delhi;
August 9, 2011.
54
ajay sethi
(Expert) 03 June 2012
only relevant extracts reproduced . its along judgement running into number of pages
lissing perme
(Querist) 06 June 2012
Thanks for Reply and guidance!
Sir!! could you please upload the aforesaid order copy of KIC mention by you.
