The main legal point established in the judgment is that public authorities must consider whether any public interest is involved in the disclosure of information sought under the RTI Act, and whether it outweighs the interest of the third party.

1. The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University represented by its Registrar is the petitioner. They have come forward to challenge the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the first respondent.

2. The short question arisesfor consideration is whether the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, dated 18.8.2009 to the petitioner University directing them to furnish certain information to the applicant, is legally justified.

3. By the impugned, order dated 18.8.2009, the Information Commission directed the university to keep the documents to be perused by the representative of the third respondent, who had sought for certain information from the University, which was declined by them. By its direction, the University was directed to keep the file relating to question Nos.1 and 3 on 24.9.2008 and also to take Photostat copies of pages which the third respondent wanted. They were also directed to permit the third respondent to take Videograph of events while processing question No.4 and also to give information relating to question Nos.2,5 and 6 within one week. The writ petition was admitted on 11.9.2009 and an interim stay was granted.

4. It is the stand of the petitioner university that the third respondent has no locus standi to seek such information under Section 2(j)(i) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act). Since R-3 organisation seems to be concerned only with the human rights as the name indicates, they have no right to seek such information. The present attempt is an abuse of the process of law. Further contention was that the third respondent is posing themselves as law students. The information sought for by them is exempted under the purview of the Act. The information Commission had violated the procedure contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, especially when the information sought for relates to a third party (who are students of the university), any details regarding their work cannot be asked for. Such a direction is in violation of Section 11(4) of the RTI Act. It was further stated that the impugned order is a non speaking order.

5. It is seen from the records that the third respondent wanted to have answer sheets in respect of the examinations held during May, 2008 regarding exam papers concerning with Banking Law, Law of Evidence and International Law. They also wanted to have the procedure for evaluation of such papers and also to permit them to peruse the Company Law (THT) answer sheets for December, 2007. They also wanted to find out whether there was any procedure in sending answer sheets to the houses of examiners as well as the names of valuation centre, in which answer sheets were corrected.

6. On receipt of such requisition, the Public Information Officer stated that information regarding personal information has no relation to any public activity and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j). Thereafter, the third respondent approached the Information Commission (R1). The Information Commission gave directions, as noted above.

7. Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University contended that the information is fully protected and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j). If the stand of the University was that it was fully protected, then it should have passed an appropriate order stating the reasons for its refusal. On the contrary, the act provides for disclosure of information relating to a third party, if it is of the view that such disclosure is required in public interest which outweighs the importance of any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party as per proviso to Section 11(1). Except taking a stand that such information is relates to personal information, there was no attempt made by them to find out whether any public interest is involved and the disclosure outweighs the other interest.

8. Therefore, it is the University Public Information Officer, who did not discharge his obligation in terms of Section 8(1)(