SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 72457

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE
T.K.CHRISTAL VIJILA – Appellant
Versus
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/THE REGISTRAR-ADMIN – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No. 3 3905 of 2024 T.K.Christal Vijila W/o.S.Sam Raj, No.21/103, Pottavilai, Pacode Post, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanniyakumari District -629 168.

Petitioner Vs

1.The Public Information Officer/

The Registrar-Administration, High Court of Madras, Chennai -600 104.

2.The First Appellate Authority/

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai -600 104.

3.The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, No. 19, Government Farm House, Fanepet, Nandhanam, Chennai -600 035.

Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for entire records relating to the Impugned Order in S.A.No.14461/A/2022 dated 09.02.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to provide information to the petitioner on the basis of the application dated 31.01.2022.

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj For Respondents: M/s. Poongkhulali.B for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.C.Vigneswaran for respondent No.3 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petition is bereft of any merit in so far as it seeks to challenge to the order passed by the Information Officer/Appellate Authority in refusing to disseminate the information pertaining to the answer sheets of other candidates who appeared in the examination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to answer in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 1(2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it has been held that the answer sheets of other candidates are exempted from disclosure.

4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

26.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr To:

1.The Public Information Officer/

The Registrar-Administration, High Court of Madras, Chennai -600 104.

2.The First Appellate Authority/

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai -600 104.

3.The State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, No. 19, Government Farm House, Fanepet, Nandhanam, Chennai -600 035.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr W .P.No. 3 3905 of 2024

26.11.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top