- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kerala Public Service Commission And Others v. State Information Commission And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents (candidates who appeared in a competitive examination conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission) filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking (i) scanned copies of their answer sheets, (ii) the tabulation sheet containing their interview marks, and (iii) the names of the examiners who evaluated those answer sheets. The State Public Information Officer as well as the first appellate authority rejected the request. On second appeal, the State Information Commission directed disclosure of all the requested information. The Division Benches of the Kerala High Court and the Allahabad High Court affirmed that decision. The Public Service Commissions concerned challenged those High Court judgments before the Supreme Court, leading to the present consolidated appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the Right to Information Act, the examinees are entitled to receive scanned copies of their own answer sheets and the tabulation sheet reflecting their interview marks.
- Whether the examinees are also entitled to disclosure of the identities of the examiners who evaluated their answer sheets, or whether such information is exempt from disclosure on the ground that it is held in a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments (Public Service Commissions)
- The relationship between the Commission and the examiners is fiduciary; therefore, information revealing the examiners’ identities is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
- Disclosure of examiners’ names could expose them to harassment, create possibilities of corruption, and disturb the integrity of future examinations.
- Providing answer sheets and marks is permissible, but revealing the examiners’ identities serves no public interest and may lead to “dire consequences.”
Respondents’ Arguments (Information Seekers)
- No fiduciary relationship exists between the Commission and the examiners once evaluation is complete and results are declared.
- After publication of results, secrecy is unnecessary; disclosure would enhance transparency and public confidence in a constitutional body.
- Interview marks are not “personal information,” and the Commission had already chosen to publish them.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Centre of Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 541 | Explained that Section 8(1)(e) RTI applies to information held in a fiduciary relationship, i.e., information held “in trust.” | Relied upon by the Kerala High Court to hold that no fiduciary relationship existed between the Commission and the examiners; the Supreme Court disagreed with that application. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first affirmed that examinees are entitled to receive scanned copies of their answer sheets and the tabulation sheet containing interview marks, finding “no error of law” in the High Courts’ directions on that aspect.
On the second issue, the Court rejected the Kerala High Court’s conclusion that no fiduciary relationship existed between the Commission and the examiners. It reasoned as follows:
- The Commission, acting as principal, entrusts examiners (agents) with the task of evaluating answer papers; this principal–agent relationship is inherently fiduciary.
- Information shared within that relationship—such as the identity of examiners—is therefore protected under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
- Disclosure of examiners’ identities serves little public interest, could lead to “confusion and public unrest,” and might expose examiners to retaliation or attempts at undue influence in future examinations.
- Consequently, while transparency regarding marks promotes fairness, confidentiality regarding examiners’ identities safeguards the examination process.
Holding and Implications
Appeals allowed in part and High Court judgments modified. The respondents are entitled to receive their scanned answer sheets and interview tabulation sheets, but not the names of the examiners.
Implications: The decision balances transparency with protection of the examination process. It affirms the right of candidates to access their own evaluative materials, reinforcing accountability, while concurrently declaring examiner identity to be exempt information held in a fiduciary capacity. No new statutory interpretation was announced beyond this clarification under Section 8(1)(e) RTI.
M. Yusuf Eqbal, J.— Leave granted. In these two appeals the short question which needs consideration is as to whether the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment1 has rightly held that the respondents are entitled not only to get information with regard to the scan copies of their answer sheet, tabulation-sheet containing interview marks but also entitled to know the names of the examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet.
2. The information sought for by the respondents was denied by the State Public Information Officer and the appellate authority. However, the State Information Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there is no fiduciary relationship in case of answer scripts. Further, the interview marks cannot be considered as personal information, since the public authority had already decided to publish them.
3. Both the High Courts of Kerala and Allahabad2 have taken the view, following the earlier decisions of this Court that no fiduciary relationship exists between the appellants and the respondents and, therefore, the information sought for have to be supplied to them.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments, passed by the Division Bench of the High Courts of Kerala at Ernakulam and Allahabad.
5. So far as the information sought for by the respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of his answer sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of law and the same is fully justified. However, the view of the Kerala High Court is that the information seekers are also entitled to get the disclosure of names of examiners who have evaluated the answer sheet.
6. The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot be sustained in law. The Kerala High Court while observing thus held: (Kerala Public Service Commission case, SCC OnLine Ker paras 16-17)
“16. What, if any, is the fiduciary relationship of PSC qua the examinees? Performance audit of constitutional institutions would only strengthen the confidence of the citizenry in such institutions. PSC is a constitutional institution. To stand above board, is one of its own prime requirements. There is nothing that should deter disclosure of the contents of the materials that the examinees provide as part of their performance in the competition for being selected to public service. The confidence that may be reposed by the examinees in the institution of PSC does not inspire the acceptability of a fiduciary relationship that should kindle the exclusion of information in relation to the evaluation or other details relating to the examination. Once the evaluation is over and results are declared, no more secrecy is called for. Dissemination of such information would only add to the credibility of PSC, in the constitutional conspectus in which it is placed. A particular examinee would therefore be entitled to access to information in relation to that person's answer scripts. As regards others, information in relation to answer scripts may fall within the pale of ‘third party information’ in terms of section 11 of the rti act. This only means that such information cannot be accessed except in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 11. It does not, in any manner, provide for any immunity from access.
17. We shall now examine the next contention of PSC that there is a fiduciary relationship between it and the examiners and as a consequence, it is eligible to claim protection from disclosure, except with the sanction of the competent authority, as regards the identity of the examiners as also the materials that were subjected to the examination. We have already approved Treesa and the different precedents and commentaries relied on therein as regards the concept of fiduciary relationship. We are in full agreement with the law laid by the Division Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science Studies ( Centre of Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 541 ), that Section 8(1)(e) deals with information available with the person in his fiduciary relationship with another; that information under this head is nothing but information in trust, which, but for the relationship would not have been conveyed or known to the person concerned. What is it that PSC holds in trust for the examiners? Nothing. At the best, it could be pointed out that the identity of the examiners has to be insulated from public gaze, having regard to issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to corruption if the identities of the examiners are disclosed in advance. But, at any rate, such issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the publication of the results. Therefore, it would not be in public interest to hold that there could be a continued secrecy even as regards the identity of the examiners. Access to such information, including as to the identity of the examiners, after the examination and evaluation processes are over, cannot be shied off under any law or avowed principle of privacy.”
7. We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by the Kerala High Court on the question of disclosure of names of the examiners.
8. In the present case, PSC has taken upon itself in appointing the examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, PSC and examiners stand in a principal-agent relationship. Here PSC in the shoes of a principal has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to the examiners. Consequently, examiners in the position of agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the instructions given by PSC. As a result, a fiduciary relationship is established between PSC and the examiners. Therefore, any information shared between them is not liable to be disclosed. Furthermore, the information seeker has no role to play in this and we do not see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the public at large. We would like to point out that the disclosure of the identity of examiners is in the least interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal the examiner's identity will give rise to dire consequences. Therefore, in our considered opinion revealing examiner's identity will only lead to confusion and public unrest. Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the Kerala High Court with respect to the second question.
9. In the present case the request of the information seeker about the information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and should be provided to him. It is not something which a public authority keeps it under a fiduciary capacity. Even disclosing the marks and the answer sheets to the candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given marks according to their performance in the exam. This practice will ensure a fair play in this competitive environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the competitive exams, but, the request of the information seeker about the details of the person who had examined/checked the paper cannot and shall not be provided to the information seeker as the relationship between the public authority i.e Service Commission and the examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and impartially and, similarly, the examiners have faith that they will not be facing any unfortunate consequences for doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job properly. This may, further, create a situation where the potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in the same State or in the same level will try to contact the disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means in the potential exam.
10. We, therefore, allow these appeals in part and modify the judgment only to the extent that the respondent applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of names of the examiners as sought for by them.
Alert