Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
‘Post-exam disclosure doesn’t harm competitive interests’, Questions invocation of fiduciary relationship
The Jammu and Kashmir
Public Service Commission (JKPSC) has come under sharp criticism from the
Central Information Commission (CIC) for seeking to defend its denial of
examination records through judicial precedents that, according to the CIC,
were wrongly applied.
Moreover, the Commission described the PSC’s reliance on one Supreme Court judgment as a grossly erroneous submission, while terming its original RTI response evasive, misleading and inconclusive and its approach to the records a blanket denial.
Accordingly, the Commission has directed the CPIO of the JKPSC to revisit the RTI application in a point-wise manner, ascertain the availability of the desired information in recorded form under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and reassess the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8(1) and/or 9 read with Section 10 of the Act.
The case pertains to an RTI application filed on August 12, 2024, concerning the OMR-based Objective Type Written Examination for the posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the J&K Higher Education Department, conducted on November 5, 2023.
The applicant had sought six categories of information, including the list of questions challenged by candidates after publication of provisional answer keys, opinions of subject experts, rationale and reasoning for decisions on challenged questions, references to books and authoritative sources cited by experts, correspondence between the Commission and subject experts and details of quorum and minutes of meetings in which decisions were taken regarding challenged questions.
The CPIO had initially denied the information by stating that third-party information cannot be provided. However, the First Appellate Authority, in its order dated October 22, 2024, held that no third party is involved, but maintained that the information was of a confidential and sensitive nature involving experts and could compromise their safety and security.
During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that the list of questions challenged by other candidates was treated as third-party information and that disclosure could cause public ruckus.
The Commission found the original reply of the CPIO grossly inappropriate, observing that the CPIO had not invoked any exemptions in terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Instead, the CPIO had simply stated, in a summative manner, that third-party information could not be provided.
The Commission further noted that at the stage of the Second Appeal hearing, the CPIO had emphasised confidentiality and sensitivity, while adding another dimension the existence of a fiduciary relationship. However, the CIC said that in the absence of an indication as to who was the beneficiary and who was the trustee whose interests were sought to be protected, it was at a loss to comprehend the reason for invoking the fiduciary relationship.
The Commission was particularly critical of the manner in which the CPIO relied upon judgments of superior courts. It observed that the CPIO had relied on various citations without quoting the relevant operative parts of these judgments for lending clarity or purpose and instead sought to put forth a self-styled statement of interpretation of the judgments.
The omission to specify the relevant operative contents, the CIC said, led to the discovery of an irrelevant and misleading citation in the CPIO’s written submissions dated March 10, 2026.
The Commission specifically examined the reliance placed on Nitish Kumar & Ors Versus Union of India & Another, Delhi High Court, 2023, WP(C) 2977/2023, which the CPIO had argued was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in UPSC Vs Angesh Kumar (2018).
Terming this as grossly erroneous submission, the CIC said that the subject matter of the Nitish Kumar judgment concerned aspirants seeking recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma who were overaged and had sought upper age relaxation of three years to enable them to apply for the recruitment.
The CIC specifically noted that the judgment has no mention or reference made to the Angesh Kumar judgment. Similarly, the alleged deductions of the court stated further in the CPIO’s submissions are also incorrect and misleading, the Commission observed.
While the CPIO had argued that the Supreme Court had held that information relating to marks in a recruitment examination could not automatically be disclosed, the CIC pointed out that the judgment dealt with disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination, whereas the RTI application in the present case sought information regarding the list of challenged questions and records incidental thereto.
“If the respondent sought simply to protect the interests of subject experts, Section 10 was available to ensure harmonising the conflicting interests by redacting the names and identifying particulars of the subject experts”, the CIC said, adding “if revealing the list of challenged questions would reveal the identity of third-party candidates, the respondent had adequate resort to Section 10”.
The CIC rejected the proposition that after inviting challenges or objections from candidates to the question paper or answer keys, the remainder of the process was forbidden from public scrutiny without exception. “An obtuse approach such as this would appear to be inviting aspersions against the integrity of the examination process”, the Commission observed, adding “such an approach runs contrary to the tenets of probity, good faith and transparency expected from examination bodies”.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the CIC said, while question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions may not be disclosed before an examination as disclosure could harm the competitive position of third parties, the position is different once the examination has been held”, adding “disclosure of question papers, model answers and instructions after the examination and completion of evaluation would not harm the competitive position of any third party”.
‘Post-exam disclosure doesn’t harm competitive interests’, Questions invocation of fiduciary relationship
Moreover, the Commission described the PSC’s reliance on one Supreme Court judgment as a grossly erroneous submission, while terming its original RTI response evasive, misleading and inconclusive and its approach to the records a blanket denial.
Accordingly, the Commission has directed the CPIO of the JKPSC to revisit the RTI application in a point-wise manner, ascertain the availability of the desired information in recorded form under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and reassess the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8(1) and/or 9 read with Section 10 of the Act.
The case pertains to an RTI application filed on August 12, 2024, concerning the OMR-based Objective Type Written Examination for the posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the J&K Higher Education Department, conducted on November 5, 2023.
The applicant had sought six categories of information, including the list of questions challenged by candidates after publication of provisional answer keys, opinions of subject experts, rationale and reasoning for decisions on challenged questions, references to books and authoritative sources cited by experts, correspondence between the Commission and subject experts and details of quorum and minutes of meetings in which decisions were taken regarding challenged questions.
The CPIO had initially denied the information by stating that third-party information cannot be provided. However, the First Appellate Authority, in its order dated October 22, 2024, held that no third party is involved, but maintained that the information was of a confidential and sensitive nature involving experts and could compromise their safety and security.
During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that the list of questions challenged by other candidates was treated as third-party information and that disclosure could cause public ruckus.
The Commission found the original reply of the CPIO grossly inappropriate, observing that the CPIO had not invoked any exemptions in terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Instead, the CPIO had simply stated, in a summative manner, that third-party information could not be provided.
The Commission further noted that at the stage of the Second Appeal hearing, the CPIO had emphasised confidentiality and sensitivity, while adding another dimension the existence of a fiduciary relationship. However, the CIC said that in the absence of an indication as to who was the beneficiary and who was the trustee whose interests were sought to be protected, it was at a loss to comprehend the reason for invoking the fiduciary relationship.
The Commission was particularly critical of the manner in which the CPIO relied upon judgments of superior courts. It observed that the CPIO had relied on various citations without quoting the relevant operative parts of these judgments for lending clarity or purpose and instead sought to put forth a self-styled statement of interpretation of the judgments.
The omission to specify the relevant operative contents, the CIC said, led to the discovery of an irrelevant and misleading citation in the CPIO’s written submissions dated March 10, 2026.
The Commission specifically examined the reliance placed on Nitish Kumar & Ors Versus Union of India & Another, Delhi High Court, 2023, WP(C) 2977/2023, which the CPIO had argued was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in UPSC Vs Angesh Kumar (2018).
Terming this as grossly erroneous submission, the CIC said that the subject matter of the Nitish Kumar judgment concerned aspirants seeking recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma who were overaged and had sought upper age relaxation of three years to enable them to apply for the recruitment.
The CIC specifically noted that the judgment has no mention or reference made to the Angesh Kumar judgment. Similarly, the alleged deductions of the court stated further in the CPIO’s submissions are also incorrect and misleading, the Commission observed.
While the CPIO had argued that the Supreme Court had held that information relating to marks in a recruitment examination could not automatically be disclosed, the CIC pointed out that the judgment dealt with disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination, whereas the RTI application in the present case sought information regarding the list of challenged questions and records incidental thereto.
“If the respondent sought simply to protect the interests of subject experts, Section 10 was available to ensure harmonising the conflicting interests by redacting the names and identifying particulars of the subject experts”, the CIC said, adding “if revealing the list of challenged questions would reveal the identity of third-party candidates, the respondent had adequate resort to Section 10”.
The CIC rejected the proposition that after inviting challenges or objections from candidates to the question paper or answer keys, the remainder of the process was forbidden from public scrutiny without exception. “An obtuse approach such as this would appear to be inviting aspersions against the integrity of the examination process”, the Commission observed, adding “such an approach runs contrary to the tenets of probity, good faith and transparency expected from examination bodies”.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the CIC said, while question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions may not be disclosed before an examination as disclosure could harm the competitive position of third parties, the position is different once the examination has been held”, adding “disclosure of question papers, model answers and instructions after the examination and completion of evaluation would not harm the competitive position of any third party”.
.JPG)
.JPG)
