Court Cases & Legal News.

Karnataka High Court: RTI Activism Not a Free Pass to Access Third-Party Exam Answer Scripts

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, has held that a person's status as an RTI activist does not automatically grant them the right to access the examination answer scripts of a third party.

In the case of Intak Raju N vs Karnataka Information Commission (Writ Petition No. 26292 of 2025) , a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by an activist, reinforcing the line between public transparency and individual privacy.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mr. Intak Raju N, who identified himself as an RTI Activist and the President of the Mysore District Right to Information and Human Rights Protection Association, had filed an RTI application seeking the answer script of a successful candidate in an examination conducted by the Excise Department.

His request was systematically rejected at all administrative levels: first by the Public Information Officer (PIO), then by the First Appellate Authority, and finally, the rejection was upheld by the Karnataka Information Commission. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the orders.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner's primary contention was that as an RTI activist, he had a right to access the information to ensure transparency in the appointment process of the successful candidate. The plea was based on the premise that his role in public life justified the disclosure of the third party's answer script.

Court's Reasoning and Judgment

Justice Suraj Govindaraj found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage. The court drew a clear distinction between an individual seeking their own information and seeking the personal information of another person.

The judgment emphasized that the petitioner had no personal connection to the examination, nor was he an aggrieved party in the selection process. The court observed:

> "What has been sought for by the petitioner is essentially an answer script of a person who had appeared in the exam and not that of the petitioner himself in any way. The petitioner had not appeared for the exam but only claims to be a Right to Information Activist."

The court unequivocally stated that the petitioner's self-proclaimed status as an activist did not create a special right to override the privacy of a third party. The pivotal observation from the bench was:

> "Merely being a Right to Information Activist would not give the petitioner the right to seek for answer scripts of a person who had appeared for the exam conducted by the KPSC."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make out any valid grounds for the relief sought and consequently dismissed the writ petition.

This order serves as a crucial clarification on the limits of the RTI Act. It underscores that while the Act is a powerful tool for promoting accountability, it does not permit roving inquiries into the personal information of third parties, such as their performance in an examination. The ruling protects the privacy of individuals and prevents the potential misuse of the RTI framework under the guise of activism.