Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 — Regulation 39(2) — Revision of marks

August 2nd, 2013

Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 — Regulation 39(2) — Revision of marks — Moderation standards — Disclosure of — Each examining body has its own standards of moderation drawn up with reference to its own experiences — Appellant is liable to disclose its standards of moderation if any — Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 4(1)(b), (c).

HELD: Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information, after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the applicability of the Act. As the examining bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may.

We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.

In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the CIC is restored, subject to one modification in regard to query (13): ICAI to disclose to the first respondent, the standard criteria, if any, relating to moderation, employed by it, for the purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2) — .

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 7571/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2040/2011)(02/09/2011), 2012(1) SCV(Civil) 23: 2011 AIR(SC) 3336: 2011(8) SCC 781: 2011(10) JT 128: 2011(9) SCALE 639: 2011(6) SLT 692 [R.V. Raveendran, J.: A.K. Patnaik, J.]

Entry Filed under: Right to Information