UPSC Exam Transparency and RTI: Supreme Court Balances Confidentiality and Public Interest

The Supreme Court of India delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) vs. Angesh Kumar & Others, addressing the balance between transparency and confidentiality in the civil services examination process. The case revolved around the demand for disclosure of raw and scaled marks, cut-off scores, model answers, and the evaluation process under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The ruling reinforced that while transparency is vital in public recruitment, it must be weighed against the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the examination system.

Background of the Case

The respondents, who were unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010, sought information from UPSC under the RTI Act. They requested the following details:

• Raw and scaled marks obtained by them in the exam.
• Cut-off marks for every subject.
• Scaling methodology used for evaluating the papers.
• Model answers used by UPSC examiners.
• The complete result of all candidates who appeared in the examination.

The request was denied by UPSC, leading the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge directed UPSC to furnish the requested information within fifteen days. This order was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved, UPSC filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

• Whether UPSC was bound to disclose marks, cut-off scores, and model answers under the RTI Act.
• Whether disclosure of such information would compromise the integrity of the examination process.
• Whether there were legal exemptions under the RTI Act that justified non-disclosure.
• Whether transparency in public recruitment outweighed concerns of confidentiality and fairness.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ (Angesh Kumar & Others) Arguments

• The RTI Act guarantees access to all public information, except for limited exemptions under Sections 8, 9, and 11.
• UPSC, being a public body, must maintain transparency in its examination and evaluation process.
• Disclosure of cut-off marks and scaling methodology was necessary to ensure fairness in recruitment.
• Providing model answers would help candidates understand the expected responses and improve future attempts.

Respondents’ (UPSC) Arguments

• The disclosure of raw marks, scaling methodology, and model answers would severely compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the examination process.
• Examiners use multiple stages of evaluation, moderation, and normalization, making raw marks unreliable for public comparison.
• Releasing evaluated answer sheets could lead to unnecessary litigation from candidates who feel unfairly marked.
• The UPSC exam system, which determines India’s top bureaucrats, requires secrecy to prevent manipulation and undue influence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the provisions of the RTI Act and the judicial precedents, including Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay. It stated:

“The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests.”

The Court further elaborated that:

“Indiscriminate and impractical demands under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.”

Final Judgment and Directions

1. The Supreme Court allowed UPSC’s appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment.
2. The Court ruled that the requested information cannot be disclosed mechanically under the RTI Act.
3. It emphasized that while transparency is important, the efficient functioning of government examinations is an overriding concern.
4. However, the Court left open the possibility for candidates to seek judicial intervention in specific cases where public interest warrants disclosure.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the idea that while public institutions must be transparent, they must also ensure that their functioning is not hampered by excessive disclosure demands. The judgment has far-reaching consequences for all competitive examinations conducted in India, ensuring that institutions like UPSC can maintain confidentiality in their evaluation processes.

Impact on Future RTI Applications

The judgment clarifies that RTI applicants seeking information from examination bodies must establish a specific public interest rather than making blanket requests. It also signals that courts will carefully weigh competing interests before ordering the disclosure of sensitive information.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case sets a precedent in balancing the right to information with the need to protect the integrity of competitive examinations. While transparency remains a fundamental principle, it must not come at the cost of efficiency and fairness in public recruitment processes. The ruling upholds the confidentiality of UPSC evaluations, ensuring that future civil servants are selected through a robust and impartial system.

Petitioner Name: Union Public Service Commission
Respondent Name: Angesh Kumar & Others
Judgment By: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment Date: 20-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union Public Service vs Angesh Kumar & Other Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category