The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a balanced approach in interpreting the exemptions under the RTI Act, considering the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and other public interests while ensuring transparency and accountability.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 22nd December, 2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing in limine WP(C) No. 8558/2010 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the decision dated 12th November, 2010 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the appellant to furnish to the respondent the information sought by the respondent. Notice of this appeal and of the application for condonation of 106 days delay in filing this appeal was issued vide order dated 26th May, 2011 and the operation of the order dated 22nd December, 2010 of the learned Single Judge was also stayed. The respondent remained unserved with the report that “a lady at the address of the respondent refused to accept the notice on the ground that the respondent was working at “Jabwa” and she had no knowledge of the notice”. The respondent was directed to be served afresh but no steps were taken by the appellant. When the matter came up before us on 1st March, 2012, being of the view that the matter was fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781, the counsel for the appellant was asked to satisfy this Court as to the merit of this appeal. The counsel for the appellant sought adjournment from time to time and in these circumstances on 30th March, 2012 orders were reserved in the appeal with liberty to the counsel for the appellant to file written arguments. Written arguments dated 11th April, 2012 have been filed by the appellant and which have been considered by us.

2. The respondent in his application dated 5th April, 2010 had sought the following information from the Information Officer of the appellant.

“1. Certified copies of original questions papers of all Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010.

2. Certified copies of correct answers of all respective questions asked in Mch super-speciality entrance exam conducted from 2005-2010.”

3. The Information Officer of the appellant vide reply dated 21st April, 2010 refused to supply the information sought on the ground that the “questions and their answers are prepared and edited by AIIMS, thus the product remains “intellectual property” of AIIMS. Since these questions are part of the question bank and likely to be used again, the supply of question booklet would be against larger public interest”. The provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) and 8(1) (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 were also invoked.

4. The respondent preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority sought the comments of the appellant AIIMS. AIIMS, besides reiterating what was replied by its Information Officer added that the information asked was a part of confidential documents which compromises the process of selection and thus could not be disclosed. Though the order of the First Appellate Authority is not found in the paper book, but it appears that the appeal was dismissed as the respondent preferred a second appeal to the CIC.

5. It was the contention of the appellant before the CIC that there are limited number of questions available with regard to super-speciality subjects in the question bank and that the disclosure of such questions would only encourage the students appearing for the exam to simply memorize the answers for the exam, thereby adversely affecting the selection of good candidates for super-speciality courses. It was thus argued that the question papers of the entrance examination for super-speciality courses could not be made public.

6. CIC vide its order dated 12th November, 2010 (supra), noticing the admission of the appellant that the question papers could not be termed as “intellectual property” and observing that the appellant had been unable to invoke any exemption sub-clause of Section 8(1) of the Act to deny information and further holding that the refusal of information was not t