Case Note & Summary
The Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) in Case No. KIC 78 COM 2020. The dispute arose from a recruitment process for 428 posts of Gazetted Probationers conducted under the Karnataka Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (Appointment by competitive examinations) Rules, 1997. Respondent No.1, an unsuccessful candidate, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 16.01.2020, requesting certified copies of evaluated answer scripts for all subjects in the main written examination along with marks awarded to each question. The Public Information Officer of KPSC rejected the application on 14.02.2020, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar (2018) 4 SCC 530, which held that evaluated answer scripts need not be disclosed under the RTI Act. The candidate's first appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on 01.06.2020. Meanwhile, the candidate approached the Karnataka Information Commission with a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. The KIC, after hearing, passed an order on 18.06.2020 directing the Controller of Examinations, KPSC to provide the information sought free of cost, citing Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the RTI Act. KPSC challenged this order, contending that the Supreme Court's decision in Angesh Kumar squarely covered the issue and that the KIC's order was erroneous. KPSC also highlighted that marks obtained by candidates were already available on its website. The matter was heard on 23.07.2020 and reserved for orders. On 26.08.2020, the court pronounced its judgment. The core legal issue was whether the KIC's direction to disclose question-wise marks in evaluated answer scripts was sustainable in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Angesh Kumar, which emphasized the confidentiality of examination processes and the potential harm disclosure could cause. The court examined the arguments and the applicable legal principles. The final decision is not included in the provided text, but the case illustrates the tension between the right to information and the need to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of competitive examinations.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Disclosure of Answer Scripts - Section 8, Right to Information Act, 2005 - Examination Confidentiality - The Karnataka Information Commission directed disclosure of evaluated answer scripts with question-wise marks, which was challenged by KPSC relying on Supreme Court precedent in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar that such disclosure is not required - The court examined the applicability of Angesh Kumar to the facts (Paras 4-5). B) Right to Information - Public Authority Obligations - Section 4, Right to Information Act, 2005 - KPSC contended that marks obtained by candidates are already disclosed on the website, thereby satisfying transparency requirements - The court noted that marks obtained by candidates are available online, but the dispute concerned question-wise marks (Paras 5.8-5.9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka Information Commission's order directing disclosure of evaluated answer scripts with marks awarded to each question is valid in light of the Supreme Court's decision in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar?
Law Points
- Disclosure of evaluated answer scripts with question-wise marks under RTI Act
- applicability of UPSC v. Angesh Kumar (2018) 4 SCC 530
- confidentiality in competitive examinations
- interpretation of Section 18(1) and 19(8)(a)(ii) of RTI Act
