"SC: Exam Marks of Other Candidates Can Be Disclosed Under RTI in Public Interest"

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Bombay High Court order stating that marks obtained by other candidates in a public exam can be disclosed under the RTI Act if it serves the public interest. On November 11, 2024, the High Court ruled in favor of a candidate who requested marks, including his own, for the Junior Clerk recruitment in Pune District Court. He had applied under the RTI Act after not being selected despite securing a rank and being called for an interview. However, his request was denied, with authorities claiming the information was "confidential." Rejecting the same, the High Court held that marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be “personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest”. The High Court held: "The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest...Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression “unwarranted”. Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is “unwarranted invasion”." This order has now been upheld by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The Court said: "We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process." Case Details: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR v. ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025 Appearances: Petitioner- K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.; Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR; Chinmayee, Adv.; Nishant Sharma, Adv.; Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.; and Viraj M. Parakh, Adv. Respondent: Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.; Rishabh Jain, Adv.; Bhushan, Adv.; and Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR www.legalmeet.in