1. Disclosure of marks of other candidates in an examination under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1348
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
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that disclosing marks of other candidates in an examination, though personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, is permissible and necessary in the public interest to maintain transparency in the process.
Subject
Administrative Law - Right to Information
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(j) - Disclosure of examination marks - High Court's interpretation of the RTI Act regarding the disclosure of marks of other candidates deemed necessary for public interest, balancing privacy against transparency. (Paras 2)
(B) Public Interest - The court emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency in the examination process as a critical aspect of public interest overriding the personal information privacy concerns. (Paras 2)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the disclosure of marks of other candidates in an examination, which was deemed necessary for public interest.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was upheld, reaffirming that such disclosures are in public interest under the RTI Act, 2005.
Issues: The central issue was whether the disclosure of examination marks of other candidates falls under personal information that can be exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disclosure is necessary in public interest, thus valid under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and that transparency in examination processes must be maintained.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
(B) Public Interest - The court emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency in the examination process as a critical aspect of public interest overriding the personal information privacy concerns. (Paras 2)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the disclosure of marks of other candidates in an examination, which was deemed necessary for public interest.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was upheld, reaffirming that such disclosures are in public interest under the RTI Act, 2005.
Issues: The central issue was whether the disclosure of examination marks of other candidates falls under personal information that can be exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disclosure is necessary in public interest, thus valid under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and that transparency in examination processes must be maintained.
Result: Special leave petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
right to information act
-
disclosure of information
- personal information (Para 2)
-
disclosure of information
-
right to information act
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocte, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advocate, Ms. Chinmayee, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Advocate, Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bhushan, Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocte, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advocate, Ms. Chinmayee, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Advocate, Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocate, Mr. Bhushan, Advocate and Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Whether the disclosure of marks of other candidates in an examination constitutes personal information exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (Para 2 )
3. Disclosure of examination marks, though potentially personal information, is necessary in the public interest to maintain transparency in the process. (Para 2 )
4. Personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, must be disclosed if such disclosure is necessary in the public interest for transparency. (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. Is the disclosure of examination marks of other candidates exempt as personal information under the RTI Act?
While the disclosure of marks may fall within the category of personal information, it is not exempt if the disclosure is presently necessary in the public interest to maintain transparency in the process. (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.
