UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 20-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC.
v.
ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6159-6162 of 2013 etc.)
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005 –
ss. 3, 6, 8, 9 and 11 – Writ petition u/Art. 226 of Constitution
– Filed by unsuccessful candidates of the Civil Services
(Preliminary) Examination – Seeking direction to Union Public
Service Commission (UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw
and scaled) awarded to them in the exam – Also sought information
in the form of cut-off marks for every subject, scaling methodology,
model answers, and complete result of all the candidates – Single
Judge of High Court directed UPSC to provide the sought information
– View of Single Judge affirmed by Division Bench – On appeal,
held:  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, it is to be
held that the information sought with regard to marks in Civil
Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically –
Furnishing raw marks will cause problems, which will not be in
public interest – However, if a case is made out where the Court
finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the
Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation – If
rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be
enforced – In the present case, direction has been issued without
considering these parameters – The appeals and Special Leave
Petitions are disposed of.
Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 497 :
[2011] 11 SCR 1028 ; Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar
v. UPSC (2013) 12 SCC 489 – relied on.
Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007)
3 SCC 720 : [2007] 1 SCR 235 ; U.P. Public Service
                                      [2018] 1 S.C.R. 1076
1076
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit (2003) 12 SCC
701 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 210 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 11 SCR 1028
     relied on
Para 6
(2013) 12 SCC 489
     relied on
Para 8
[2007] 1 SCR 235
     referred to
Para 9
[2003] 5 Suppl SCR 210     referred to
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6159-
6162 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 13.07.2012 and 28.08.2012
of the High Court of  Delhi at New Delhi  in  LPA No.229/2011 in W.P.
© No.3316/2011 and in Review Petition No.486/2012 in L.P.A. No.
229/2011 and Review Petition No.484 in W.P.  (C) in W.P. © No.3316/
2011 respectively
WITH
C.A. No.5924 of 2013, S.L.P (C) Nos.28817,  28801, 28811, 28816,
28805 of 2014 and  S.L.P  (C) No….. of  2018 (@ Diary No.15951 of
2017).
Tushar Mehta, ASG, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Binu Tamta, Dhruv
Tamta, Vardhman Kaushik, Omung Raj Gupta, Karan D. Baghel, Devik
Singh, Manoj Joshi, Ms. Lalita Kaushik, Kumar Shashank, Advs for the
Appellants.
Petitioner-in-person.
Pinky Anand, ASG, M.K. Maroria, Ms. Madhvi Diwan,
Ms. Saudamini Sharma,  Ms. Rukmini Bobde, Renjith B. Marar, Lakshmi
N. Raimal, Vishnu P., Anubhav Anand Pandey, Ms. Kirti Dua, Sumit
Kumar Abhishek Chakraborty, Hemant Kumar, Nitin Singh, Sanjay Yadav,
Vikrant Singh Bais, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Arjun D. Singh, S.K. Verma,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Munawwar Naseem, Vikrant Singh Bais,
Pankaj Kumar, Jagdish Kumar Chawla, Gaurav Agrawal, Yash Pal Singh
Dhingra, Advs for the Respondents.
Rajesh Tiwari (Respondent-in-person).
Caveator-in-person.
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. v. ANGESH
KUMAR & ORS. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No(s).6159-6162 of 2013 :
1.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
2.  These appeals have been preferred against judgment and Order
dated 13.7.2012 in LPA NO.229 of 2011 in W.P.(C)NO.3316 of 2011,
28.08.2012 in Review Petition NO.486 of 2012 in LPA NO.229/2011
and Review Petition NO.484 of 2012 in W.P.(C) NO.3316/2011 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
3.  The respondents-writ petitioners were unsuccessful candidates
in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010.  They approached
the High Court for a direction to the Union Public Service Commission
(UPSC) to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to
them in the Civil Services (Prelims) Examination 2010.  T

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