THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 04-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] i S.C.R.413 
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. 
A 
v. 
THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 823-854of2016) 
FEBRUARY 04, 2016 
(M.Y. EQBAL AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.! 
Right lo i11formation: Public Senice Commission - Examinee 
is e11titled lo supply <f scan11ed copies ()(his answer sheet of the 
l1 1rNten test, tabulation sheet containing inlervieH' 111arks and other 
infor111ation - HoH 1eve1: exc1111i11ee is not entitlell to gel the di.\·c/osure 
of names of' the examiner who has emluated the 1111swer sheet since 
relationship between the PSC and the Ewminers is .fiduciary i11 
11alure a11d any i11jimnalim1 shared between them is 1101 liable lo 
be disc/osecl - S'erl'ice /a11 1 -
Recrui1111e111 exa1nination. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The PSC has taken npon itself appointment of the 
examiners to evaluate the answer papers and as such, the PSC 
and examiners stand in a p1incipal-agen t rcL~tionship. Herc, the 
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 arc bound to evaluate the answer 
papers as per the instructions given by the PSC As a result, a 
fiduciary relationship is established between the 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 there is no logical reason as to how 
this will benefit him or the public .at large. 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 com1ictitivc 
environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for the 
413 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 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 disclosure of 
name of the examiners in every exam is allowed, the 
C 
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 
D gain by illegal means in the potential exam. [Paras 9, 10) 
[417-B-D; E-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 823-
854 of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2011 of the High Court 
E 
ofKerala at Emakulam in W. P (C) Nos. 33620/2009-V, 33718/2010-L, 
3585/2008-B, 15363/2008-0, 15424/2008-J, 22386/2008-M, 6177/20 I 0-
V, 9250/2010-E, 25779/2010-V, 23839/2010-0, 32772/2010-V, 12032/ 
2009-Y, 12160/2009-L, 34585/2007-P, 33620/2009-V, 35723/2008-C, 
22398/2008-N, 22230/2007-U, 6355/2010-T, 22231/2007-V, 3577/2008-
A, 12312/2007-N, 23458/2008-P, 3 7772/2008-V, 11876/2009-0, 23539/ 
F 
2008-B, 11687/2009-E, 33616/2009-V, 11042/2010-E, 2207/2008-K, 
10971/2010-V, & 5978/2010-V,35840/2008-N 
WITH 
C. A. NO. 855 OF 2016 
V. Giri, Vipin Nair, P. B. Suresh, Vinod Nair, Rahul Srivastava, 
G 
Mohammed Sadique T. A., (For Mis. Temple Law Firm), Shrish Kumar 
Misra, Piyush Owivedi for the Appellants. 
H 
G. M. Kawoosa, N. Ganpathy, M. Ajay, Ramesh Babu M. R., B. 
R. Mohan Kumar, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, M. V. Rama, Ram Lal Roy, 0. 
P. Chaturvedi, Ravi Panwar, (For S. N. Bhat) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. THE STATE 
415 
INFORMATION COMMISSION 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. In these two appeals the short question which needs 
CO)lSideration is as to whether the Division Benc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.