Important Decisions of the Supreme Court of India on RTI Act -Part I

Article

Important Decisions of the Supreme Court of India on RTI Act -Part I

The following decisions have been given in the matter of Common Cause Petitioner(s) versus High Court of Allahabad & anr. Respondent(s); Writ Petition (Civil) No.194 of 2012

Fees:

We are of the view that, as a normal Rule, the charge for the application should not be more than 2 Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-. However, exceptional situations may be dealt with differently. This will not debar revision in future, if situation so demands.

Disclosure of motive for seeking the information:

No motive needs to be disclosed in view of the scheme of the Act.

Requirement of permission of the Chief Justice or the Judge concerned to the disclosure of information in the Allahabad High Court Rules:

We make it clear that the said requirement will be only in respect of information which is exempted under the scheme of the Act.

Transfer of RTI applications to other Public Authorities:

As regards the objection that under Section 6(3) of the Act, the public authority has to transfer the application to another public authority if information is not available, the said provision should also normally be complied with except where the public authority dealing with the application is not aware as to which other authority will be the appropriate authority.

Providing information with regard to the matters pending adjudication:

As regards Rules 25 to 27 of the Allahabad High Court Rules which debar giving of information with regard to the matters pending adjudication, it is clarified that the same may be read consistent with Section 8 of the Act, more particularly sub-section (1) 3 in Clause (J) thereof.

Method of moderation adopted by the UPSC in Civil Services Examination approved:

The following judgment has been given in the matter of Union Public Service Commission etc. appellant(s) versus Angesh Kumar & ors. etc. respondent(s) with C.A. No. 5924/2013:

“(8) The problems in showing evaluated answer sheets in the UPSC Civil Services Examination are recorded in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC . From the counter affidavit in the said case, following extract was referred to :

“(B) Problems in showing evaluated answer books to candidates.—

(i) Final awards subsume earlier stages of evaluation. Disclosing answer books would reveal intermediate stages too, including the so-called ‘raw marks’ which would have negative implications for the integrity of the examination system, as detailed in Section (C) below.

(ii) The evaluation process involves several stages. Awards assigned initially by an examiner can be struck out and revised due to (a) totaling mistakes, portions unevaluated, extra attempts (beyond prescribed number) being later corrected as a result of clerical scrutiny, (b) The examiner changing his own awards during the course of evaluation either because he/she marked it differently initially due to an inadvertent error or because he/she corrected himself/herself to be more in conformity with the accepted standards, after discussion with Head Examiner/colleague examiners, (c) Initial awards of the Additional Examiner being revised by the Head Examiner during the latter’s check of the former’s work, (d) the Additional Examiner’s work having been found erratic by the Head Examiner, been rechecked entirely by another examiner, with or without the Head 1 (2013) 12 SCC 489 7 Examiner again rechecking this work.

(iii) The corrections made in the answer book would likely arouse doubt and perhaps even suspicion in the candidate’s mind. Where such corrections lead to a lowering of earlier awards, this would not only breed representations/grievances, but would likely lead to litigation. In the only evaluated answer book that has so far been shown to a candidate (Shri Gaurav Gupta in WP No. 3683 of 2012 in Gaurav Gupta v. UPSC dated 6.7.2012(Del.)) on the orders of the High Court, Delhi and that too, with the marks assigned masked; the candidate has nevertheless filed a fresh WP alleging improper evaluation.

(iv) As relative merit and not absolute merit is the criterion here (unlike academic examinations), a feeling of the initial marks/revision made being considered harsh when looking at the particular answer script in isolation could arise without appreciating that similar standards have been applied to all others in the field. Non-appreciation of this would lead to erosion of faith and credibility in the system and challenges to the integrity of the system, including through litigation.

(v) With the disclosure of evaluated answer books, the danger of coaching institutes collecting copies of these from candidates (after perhaps encouraging/inducing them to apply for copies of their answer books under the RTI Act) is real, with all its attendant implications.

(vi) With disclosure of answer books to candidates, it is likely that at least some of the relevant examiners also get access to these. Their possible resentment at their initial awards (that they would probably recognise from the fictitious code numbers and/or their markings, especially for low-candidature subjects) having been superseded (either due to inter-examiner or inter-subject moderation) would lead to bad blood between Additional Examiners and the Head Examiner on the one hand, and between examiners and the Commission, on the other hand. The free and frank manner in which Head Examiners, for instance, review the work of their colleague Additional Examiners, would likely be impacted. Quality of assessment standards would suffer.

(vii) Some of the optional papers have very low candidature (sometimes only one), especially the 8 literature papers. Even if all examiners’ initials are masked (which too is difficult logistically, as each answer book has several pages, and examiners often record their initials and comments on several pages with revisions/corrections, where done, adding to the size of the problem), the way marks are awarded could itself be a give away in revealing the examiner’s identity. If the masking falters at any stage, then the examiner’s identity is pitilessly exposed. The ‘catchment area’ of candidates and examiners in some of these low-candidature papers is known to be limited. Any such possibility of the examiner’s identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. The matter is compounded by the fact that we have publicly stated in different contexts earlier that the paper-setter is also generally the Head Examiner.

(viii) UPSC is now able to get some of the best teachers and scholars in the country to be associated in its evaluation work. An important reason for this is no doubt the assurance of their anonymity, for which the Commission goes to great lengths. Once disclosure of answer books starts and the inevitable challenges (including litigation) from disappointed candidates starts, it is only a matter of time before these examiners who would be called upon to explain their assessment/award, decline to accept further assignments from the Commission. A resultant corollary would be that examiners who then accept this assignment would be sorely tempted to play safe in their marking, neither awarding outstanding marks nor very low marks, even where these are deserved. Mediocrity would reign supreme and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system would be compromised markedly.”

(9) This Court thereafter approved the method of moderation adopted by the UPSC relying upon earlier judgment in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720 and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit, (2003) 12 SCC 701.

(10) Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.

(11) In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on above 10 parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.”