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 ignore the exemption for personal information without providing clear, reasoned findings on why public interest necessitates disclosure.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC), the Petitioner herein, impugning the Orders dated 17-06-2025 and 22-07-2025, of the State Information Commission, Sikkim, Respondent No.1, in Appeal No.7/SIC/2025 [Mrs. Reha Bhandari vs. State Public Information Officer (SPIO), Sikkim Public Service Commission, Gangtok, Sikkim].

2. The facts, briefly summarised, are that, the Respondent No.2 herein filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, “RTI Act”), dated 07-12-2024, before the Petitioner, State Public Information Officer (hereinafter, “SPIO”), SPSC, inter alia, seeking the disclosure of consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview/viva-voce for the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Examination, 2022. The Petitioner vide communication dated 26-12-2024 informed the Respondent No.2 that the information sought would be considered on completion of the examination process. On 19-03-2025 the requisite information was furnished to the Respondent No.2.

(i) The Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with such information, filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e., the Secretary, SPSC, on 04-04-2025 under the provisions of the RTI Act.

(ii) After hearing the parties, the First Appellate Authority, SPSC, vide its Order dated 19-05-2025, disposed of the Appeal with the direction that the SPIO, SPSC, shall initiate the process of seeking consent from the selected candidates for disclosure of their marks in accordance with Section 11 of the RTI Act.

(iii) The Respondent No.2 being dissatisfied by the Order of the First Appellate Authority, SPSC, preferred a Second Appeal before the Respondent No.1, State Information Commission, on the same date, i.e., 19-05-2025.

(iv) The Petitioner submitted its counter statement on 10- 06-2025 before the Respondent No.1, highlighting the legal aspects, as two matters concerning the said examination were pending before the High Court. The Respondent No.1, it is urged by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, without considering the submissions put forth by the Petitioner passed an Order dated 17- 06-2025 directing the SPIO, SPSC, to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview/viva-voce including their marks, within fifteen days from the date of Order and to file a compliance report on or before 03-07-2025 to the Respondent No.1. It is further contended by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that, despite the two Writ Petitions pending before this Court, the Respondent No.1 vide its Order dated 22-07-2025 directed the Petitioner to file a compliance report, in detail, along with the documentary proof as to how furnishing the information to the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 herein, would hamper the matters pending before this Court.

(v) It was also contended that the provisions of the RTI Act provides a limited mechanism to deal with third party information under Section 11 of the RTI Act. In the instant matter, the Petitioner issued Notice to the third party, under (1) of the RTI Act, but did not receive consent from the third parties except from one candidate. Recourse was also taken to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and it was urged that the information sought was personal information and an invasion of privacy, consequently, the entire information could not be furnished to the Respondent No.2. The impugned Orders, according to Learned Senior Advocate, were passed in a mechanical manner, without any