Moneylife: National: Friday, May 04, 2018.
The results
are just out and annual celebrations over the successful candidates of the
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examinations of 2018 are manifest in
print, television and social media. What about the unsuccessful candidates and
their right to see their marks under the Right to Information (RTI) Act? Here
is an unsuccessful story.
A few failed
candidates of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination approached the High
Court for a direction to the UPSC to disclose details of marks (raw and scaled)
awarded to them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010. While the
High Court directed the UPSC to do so within 15 days, the latter took it to the
Supreme Court against the order. The Supreme Court, in its February 2018
judgment, has trashed the HC order stating that it has not taken a balanced
view of the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Justice AK
Goel and Justice UU Lalit directed that: “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 a different footing. Furnishing raw marks will
cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC…which will not be in the public
interest.”
However, the
Supreme Court in this order ends in a positive tone, stating that if the
information sought, merits ‘public interest’ then the Court can give a
favourable judgment but this particular case does not merit so. To quote, the
order states: “…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 a rule or practice can be enforced. In the present
case, direction (by the High Court) has been issued without considering these
parameters.”
Angesh Kumar
and other students, besides their marks, had sought information of cut-off
marks for every subject, scaling methodology, model answers and complete result
of all candidates. The High Court gave an order in their favour and directed
the UPSC that “the information sought be provided within fifteen days”.
However, UPSC
took the matter to the Supreme Court, pleading that, “the High Court has not
applied certain parameters”.
Reproducing
the stand of the UPSC here, without comments. Readers may read between the
lines:
- Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive 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, tranquillity 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 authority prioritising “information furnishing”, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.” (emphasis added)
- While balancing the right to information, public interest including efficient working of the Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information has to be balanced and can be a guiding factor to deal with a given situation de hors Sections 8,9 and 11. The High Court has not applied the said parameters.
The Supreme
Court, based on these pleas and extracts from other court judgments observed in
its order that, “furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the
UPSC as quoted above, which will not be in public interest”.
Thus, the
writ petitions were dismissed. However, the order concluded that, “this order
will not debar the respondents from making out a case on the above parameters
and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised.”
Wonder, what
will be the student petitioners’ next move?
.JPG)
.JPG)
