Back
Supreme Court of India
R.V. RAVEENDRAN & A.K. PATNAIK
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Versus
Shaunak H. Satya & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2040 of 2011]
Decided on: 02-09-2011
(b) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 9 – Bars disclosure of information involving infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State – Section 9 deliberately using ‘State’ and not ‘public authority’ – ICAI, having been constituted under an Act, is State in terms of Article 12 – Copyright in questions and solutions already assigned to ICAI – Their disclosure would not infringe copyright of anybody other than ‘State’, i.e., ICAI – Disclosure not barred or exempt. (Para 13)
(c) Copyright Act, 1957 – Sections 51 and 52 – Furnishing of information by an examining body, in response to a query under the RTI Act – May not constitute infringement of copyright. (Para 14)
(d) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8(1)(e) – Information held in fiduciary relationship – Instructions and solutions to questions communicated by the examining body to the examiners, head-examiners and moderators, are information available to such persons in their fiduciary relationship – Such information therefore is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d). (Para 17)
2011 (8) SCALE 645 – Relied upon
(e) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8 – Information exempt from disclosure – Disclosure of Information not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) – Exemptions in section 8 should not be read in a restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved and the goal of attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other public interests is attained. (Para 18)
(f) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 8 – Information categorised in clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h) carry absolute exemption – Those in clauses (d), (e) and (j) get only conditional exemption – Such information can be disclosed in larger public interest – While disclosing such information competent authority will have to record reasons – Instantly, CIC holding information sought under queries (3) and (5) exempt under section 8(1)(e) and that there was no larger public interest requiring denial of the statutory exemption – High Court erroneously holding the information not exempted. (Para 19, 20)
(g) Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 – Regulation 39 – Respondent no. 1 seeking information about examinations, marks obtained by candidates, etc. – ICAI expressing inability owing to non-compilation of huge data – A balance has to be maintained between goal of achieving transparency demand of information reaching unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests including limited fiscal resources – ICAI directed, in regard to query (13), to disclose standard criteria relating to moderation, employed for the purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2). (Para 24 to 27)
(2007) 3 SCC 720; 2011 (8) SCALE 645 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Respondent had failed in the examination for CA. He sought information from the Institute on 13 items. Answers to 3 items were declined. CIC, in second appeal also affirmed that the Institute is not obliged to give those information.
High Court allowed the writ petition against the order in second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result:
Appeal partly allowed.
Please provide the legal document content (inside
Judgment
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short `ICAI') is a body corporate established under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. One of the functions of the appellant council is to conduct the examination of candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants. The first respondent appeared in the Chartered Accountants' final examination conducted by ICAI in November, 2007. The results were declared in January 2008. The first respondent who was not successful in the examination applied for verification of marks. The appellant carried out the verification in accordance with the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and found that there was no discrepancy in evaluation of answerscripts. The appellant informed the first respondent accordingly.
3. On 18.1.2008 the appellant submitted an application seeking the following information under 13 heads, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (`RTI Act' for short) :
“1) Educational qualification of the examiners & Moderators with subject wise classifications. (you may not give me the names of the examiners & moderators).
2) Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.
3) Instructions issued to the examiners, and moderators oral as well as written if any.
4) Procedure established for selection of examiners & moderators.
5) Model answers if any given to the examiners & moderators if any.
6) Remuneration paid to the examiners & moderators.
7) Number of students appearing for exams at all levels in the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)
8) Number of students that passed at the 1st attempt from the above.
9) From the number of students that failed in the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up) from the above, how many students opted for verification of marks as per regulation 38.
10) Procedure adopted at the time of verification of marks as above.
11) Number of students whose marks were positively changed out of those students that opted for verification of marks.
12) Educational qualifications of the persons performing the verification of marks under Regulation 38 & remuneration paid to them.
13) Number of times that the council has revised the marks of any candidate, or any class of candidates, in accordance with regulation 39(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, the criteria used for such discretion, the quantum of such revision, the quantum of such revision, the authority that decides such discretion, and the number of students along with the quantum of revision affected by such revision in the last 5 exams, held at all levels (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up).”
(emphasis supplied)
4. The appellant by its reply dated 22.2.2008 gave the following responses/information in response to the 13 queries :
“1. Professionals, academicians and officials with relevant academic and practical experience and exposure in relevant and related fields.
2&3. Evaluation of answer books is carried out in terms of the guidance including instructions provided by Head Examiners appointed for each subject(s). Subsequently, a review thereof is undertaken for the purpose of moderators.
4. In terms of (1) above, a list of examiners is maintained under Regulation 42 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. Based on the performance of the examiners, moderators are appointed from amongst the examiners.
5. Solutions are given in confidence of examiners for the purpose of evaluation. Services of moderators are utilized in our context for paper setting.
6. Rs.50/- per answer book is paid to the examiner while Rs.10,000/- is paid to the moderator for each paper.
7. The number of students who appeared in the last two years is as follow:
Number of students Appeared
Month & Year
PE-I PE-II PCC CPE* FINAL
Nov., 2005 16228 47522 Not held Not held 28367
May, 2006 32215 49505 Not held Not held 26254
Nov., 2006 16089 49220 Not h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
