Rejection Of PIL To Make Civil Judge Exam Answer Sheets Public: MP HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Certificate For Appeal U/Art 134A

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking a certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution to move the Supreme Court to challenge an order of the High Court rejecting a PIL plea to make the answer sheets of a civil judge exam candidate, public.

The order in question was passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 2 dismissing the PIL plea seeking directions to the High Court to make available answer scripts of all the candidates who appeared for the Mains written examination of the lower judiciary exam in the State.

Read more about the Court's order here: Publishing Exam Answer Scripts Would Intrude Into Candidates' Privacy: MP High Court Rejects PIL Seeking "Transparency" In Civil Judge Selection Process

The case in brief

Essentially, the petitioner [Advocate Union for Democracy and Social Justice] had moved the High Court seeking a certificate under Article 134A of the Constitution of India on the ground that the matter involves a substantial question of law, which ought to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Here it may be noted that Article 132 r/w Article 134A of the Constitution says that such a certificate (for appeal) can be granted in cases where the substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved.

It was the specific plea of the petitioner that since the sovereign power is ultimately vested in the citizen and therefore, the citizens ought to have access to all the answer sheets of all the candidates who have appeared in the said examination by making them available on the website of the examining body.

It was also contended that by doing so, the object behind the right to information which is part and parcel of the Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution shall be served.

High court's observations

Expressing a different view in this matter, the bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice D. D. Bansal took into account the Apex Court's ruling in the case of CBSE and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497, wherein it was held that the right to information under the RTI Act should not be stretched to a limit where it enters the realm of absurdity.

"The Apex Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (supra) has impliedly held that the act of candidate to submit his answer sheet to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of result creates a fiduciary relationship which stands breached in case any person except the candidate concerned and examining body has access to the contents of the answer sheet. The Apex Court also held that disclosure of all the answer sheets of all the candidates to any member of the general public will lead to impracticality as the examining body will be bogged down with thousands of applications/representations/queries/objections and litigation arising from such disclosure," the Court remarked as it concluded that no substantial question was involved in the case at hand.

Consequently, the Court found that no case for issuance of a certificate under Article 134A was made out and therefore, the petition was dismissed sans cost.

Case title - Advocate Union for Democracy and Social Justice v. High Court of MP

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 270

Click here To Read/Download Order