BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 1032 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. 
SAIYED HUSSAIN ABBAS RIZWI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] 
RIGHT TO INFORMATON ACT, 2005 
s. 2(h) -
'Public authority' - Held: Public Service 
· Commission shall be a public authority within the scope of 
s.2(h). 
ss. 8(1 )(g), and 11 - Disclosure of names and addresses 
D of members of interview board constituted by State Public 
Service Commission - Held: If in the opinion of the authority 
concerned there is danger to life or possibility of danger to 
physical safety of members, the State Information 
Commission would be entitled to bring such case within the 
E exemption of s. 8(1)(g) - Direction to furnish the names and 
addresses of the members of Interview Board would certainly 
be opposed to the very spirit of s. 8(1)(g) and would ex facie 
endanger their lives or physical safety - Further, such 
disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public 
F purpose - Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure 
of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the 
concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to 
information within the limitation of the Act - Therefore the 
Commission is not bound to disclose such information -
G Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21. 
ss.2(f) and 2(j)) - Expressions 'information: and 'right to 
information' - Explained. 
Respondent No. 1, claiming himself to be a public 
H 
1032 
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. SAIYED 1033 
HUSSAIN ABB.fl,S RIZWI 
spirited person, filed an application seeking certain A 
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in 
connection with the selection of 'State Examiner of 
Questioned Documents' conducted by the State Public 
Service Commission. The Commission furnished 
information nearly to all the queries except the names, 
B 
designations and addresses of the members of the 
Interview Board. The writ petition filed by respondent 
No. 1 was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court. But the Division Bench directed the Commission 
to provide the names of the members of the Interview c 
Board while denying the disclosure of their addresses. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Public Service Commission is established 
under Art.315 of the Constitution of India and, as such, 
D 
there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the 
Commission shall be a public authority within the scope 
of s.2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. [Para 14] 
[1043-B-C] 
2.1. Right to information is a basic and celebrated 
E 
fundamental/basic right but is not uncontrolled. It has its 
limitations. The right is subject to a dual check. Firstly, 
this right is subject to the restrictions inbuilt within the 
Act and secondly the constitutional limitations emerging 
from Art.21 of the Constitution. The right to information 
F 
has to be balanced with the right to privacy within the 
framework of law. Section 8 of the Right to Information 
Act gives the category of cases where the public authority 
is exempted from providing the information. To such 
exemptions, there are inbuilt exceptions under some of G 
the provisions, where despite exemption, the Information 
Commission may call upon the authority to furnish the 
Information in the larger public interest. This shows the 
wide scope of these provisions as intended by the 
framers of law. In such cases, the Information 
H 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A Commission has to apply its mind whether it is a case of 
exemption within the provisions of the said section. The 
expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its 
true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the 
relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public 
B interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its 
exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption 
in terms of the Act. [Para 11 - 13 and 23] [1042-A-C-F; 
1046-G-H; 1047-A] 
Namit Sharma v. Union of India 2012 (8) SCALE 593 -
C referred to 
Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) - referred to 
2.2. The expression 'information' as defined in s. 2(f) 
is exhaustive in nature. The Legislature has given 
D meaning to the expression 'information' and has stated 
that it shall mean any material in any form including 
papers, samples, data material held in electronic form, etc. 
Right to information u/s. 2(j) means the 'right to 
informati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.