Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 8(1)(g), (j) &(e) — Disclosure of names and identity of members of interview board

February 21st, 2013

Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 8(1)(g), (j) &(e) — Disclosure of names and identity of members of interview board — Selection based on collective wisdom and collective marking of Board — Permissibility — Information relating to members of Interview Board — Availability of — Selection process was completed for the posts of Police Laboratory in Crime Investigation Department, exercising the option to select the candidates on the basis of viva voce test alone — Respondent sought information related to the names, designation and addresses of members of Interview Board and same was denied by State Information Commission — By impugned order High Court took the view that the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) were not attracted and directed the Commission to communicate the information sought for to respondent — Challenged — Held, examining body/Commission is in no fiduciary relationship with the examinee/interviewer or the candidate interviewed — Once the fiduciary relationship is not established, the obvious consequence is that the Commission cannot claim exemption as contemplated under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act — Section 8 attempts to provide exemptions and once the language of the Section is unambiguous and squarely deals with every situation, there is no occasion for the Court to frustrate the very object of the Section — It will amount to misconstruing the provisions of the Act — The High Court though has referred to Section 8(1)(j) but has, in fact, dealt with the language of Section 8(1)(g) — The reasoning of the High Court, therefore, is neither clear in reference to provision of the Section nor in terms of the language thereof — This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers — Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court — But direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act — Disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety — The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out — On the one hand, it is likely to expose the members of the Interview Board to harm and, on the other, such disclosure would serve no fruitful much less any public purpose — The transparency that is expected to be maintained in such process would not take within its ambit the disclosure of the information called for — Transparency in such cases is relatable to the process where selection is based on collective wisdom and collective marking — 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 — Consequently, appeal is allowed.

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011)8 SCC 497, Relied on.

(Para 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31)

Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi[Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 9052/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20217/2011)(13/12/2012), 2012(12) JT 552: 2012(12) SCALE 525: 2012(9) SLT 511 [Swatanter Kumar, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.]

Entry Filed under: Judgements,Right to Information