Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Public Information Officer And Registrar And Another – Appellant
Versus
Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar And Another – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783 of 2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-11-2024 in WP No. 9648 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
Decided on : 07-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition dismissed; high court's order upheld. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disclosure of examination marks in public interest under rti act. (Para 2) |
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
2. We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay, which has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act, 2005'). The issue relates to disclosure of marks of other candidate in an examination. 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.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed in the above terms.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The RTI Act's personal information exemption does not apply where public interest justifies disclosure of examination marks for transparency and fairness.
The Right to Information Act allows for disclosure of personal information in public interest, especially in competitive examinations.
Disclosure of marks in public recruitment processes under RTI promotes transparency and accountability, outweighing privacy concerns, reinforcing public trust in selection integrity.
The Court emphasized the need for a case-by-case determination of disclosure based on public interest and the distinction between 'personal information' and information relating to public activity or....
The court held that mandatory procedural requirements for disclosing third-party information must be strictly followed. An appellate authority cannot bypass the mechanism for obtaining consent nor ig....
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
