News18: New
Delhi: Saturday, September 15, 2018.
The
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is not obligated to disclose raw and
scaled marks of civil services examinations under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The
top court has refused to reconsider its ruling whereby it had earlier cited
confidentiality and integrity of the UPSC exams to put the scores of India’s
most prestigious exam outside the purview of the ‘right to know’.
A
bench headed by Justice Uday U Lalit has now dismissed a bunch of review
petitions filed against the court order in February. “We have gone through the
contents of the review petitions and do not find any error apparent on the face
of the record to justify our interference in review jurisdiction. These review
petitions, therefore, stand dismissed,” stated the order passed recently.
The
court reaffirmed its judgment of setting aside the orders passed by the Delhi
High Court and dismissing all the writ petitions filed by the UPSC aspirants
seeking disclosure of marks under the RTI.
In
February, the apex court had noted that disclosure of marks could have some
severe negative impact on the evaluation process and not only the prestige, but
the very integrity of the system could be compromised.
"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," it
had held.
The
court also underscored the difficulties expressed by UPSC that disclosure could
lead to unnecessary resentment, litigation and revealing the identity of
evaluators, thereby putting in peril the integrity of the process and inviting
hordes of litigation.
"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," said the court.
It
had, however, added that if a case is made out where the court finds that
public interest requires furnishing of information, the court is certainly
entitled to do so.