Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Public Information Officer and Registrar & Anr v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr., upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, ruling that the marks obtained by candidates in a public examination must be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, if it serves the public interest. The dispute arose when the respondent, Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, sought the disclosure of marks obtained by other candidates, including himself, in the recruitment process for the post of Junior Clerk in the District Court, Pune. The Bombay High Court allowed the disclosure, rejecting the claim that such information was confidential. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, reiterated that transparency in the selection process is paramount and that the disclosure of marks, though personal information, is necessary in the public interest.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal, argued that the marks of individual candidates constituted “personal information” and were protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. They contended that compelling disclosure would violate candidates’ privacy and could potentially open the floodgates to similar requests, overwhelming public authorities. They also submitted that the recruitment process was conducted fairly and no undue advantage had been given to any candidate. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Advocate Shantanu M. Adkar, contended that transparency in public examinations was crucial and that withholding the marks would undermine public trust in the recruitment process. The respondent emphasised that the RTI Act’s fundamental objective is to promote accountability, and disclosure of marks serves this purpose. Further, it was argued that the term “unwarranted invasion of privacy” in Section 8(1)(j) must be interpreted in light of the public interest involved, which, in this case, outweighs any minimal privacy concerns.

Court’s Judgement:

The Bombay High Court, in its order dated November 11, 2024, ruled that marks obtained by candidates in a public examination cannot ordinarily be considered “personal information” immune from disclosure. The court observed that the legislature had deliberately used the term “unwarranted invasion” in Section 8(1)(j), meaning that not every invasion of privacy is exempted—only those deemed unwarranted. The High Court concluded that disclosure of marks in the context of a recruitment process is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy, as it directly pertains to a public activity of selecting candidates for a public post. This view was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, with a bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The Supreme Court held that although marks obtained in an examination fall under the category of personal information, their disclosure,e in this case, is necessary to maintain transparency in the recruitment process. The Court emphasised that the public interest in ensuring a fair selection process outweighs the privacy concerns of individual candidates. It ruled that the information must be disclosed under the RTI Act, thereby reinforcing the Act’s primary objective of promoting accountability and transparency in governance.