The Supreme Court has upheld a Bombay High Court ruling affirming that information regarding marks obtained by candidates in a public examination cannot be withheld under the Right to Information Act, 2005, when sought in the public interest.
In a writ petition decided on November 11, 2024, the Bombay High Court directed the disclosure of marks obtained by all candidates, including the petitioner, in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court, Pune.
The petitioner had approached the High Court after his request for details regarding the selection process under the RTI Act was denied on the grounds of confidentiality. He contended that despite securing a ranking and being invited for an interview, he was not selected, prompting him to seek transparency in the evaluation process.
Rejecting the confidentiality claim, the High Court held that marks obtained in such a selection process do not ordinarily qualify as “personal information” exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court reasoned that only personal information with no connection to public activity or interest is protected under the exemption.
The High Court observed:
“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… 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’.”
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah has now upheld this decision, emphasizing the necessity of transparency in the selection process. The Court ruled:
“We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks, though it may fall in the category of personal information, is presently necessary in the public interest. Therefore, it is not information that can be denied under the RTI Act, 2005. On the contrary, such information must be disclosed to maintain transparency in the process.”
Case Details:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR v. ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025
