Marks Of Other Candidates In Public Examination Can Be Disclosed Under RTI In Public Interest: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld an order of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was observed that a request to disclose the marks obtained by other candidates in a public examination under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the public interest, cannot be declined. 

By an order dated November 11, 2024, passed in a writ petition, the High Court allowed Respondent's plea seeking disclosure of the marks obtained by other candidates, including of himself in the recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk in District Court, Pune, under the RTI Act.

It was contended before the High Court that he was not selected despite securing rank and being invited to interview. He applied under the RTI Act to secure information regarding the results and the selection process. However, his request was declined on the grounds that the information was "confidential".

Rejecting the same, the High Court held that marks obtained by the candidates in such a selection process cannot ordinarily be held to be “personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest”.

The High Court held:

"The legislature has not exempted all personal information under Section 8(1)(j) but only such personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest...Similarly, in the context of a public examination for selection to a public post, we are doubtful whether the disclosure of marks obtained by the candidates would amount to any unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such candidates. The legislature has advisedly used the expression “unwarranted”. Therefore, not any and every invasion of an individual's privacy is exempted from disclosure. Only what is exempted from disclosure is “unwarranted invasion”."

This order has now been upheld by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The Court said:

"We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process."

Case Details: PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGISTRAR & ANR v. ONKAR DATTATRAY KALMANKAR & ANR.| Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025

Appearances: 

Petitioner- K. K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.; Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR; Chinmayee, Adv.; Nishant Sharma, Adv.; Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.; and Viraj M. Parakh, Adv.

Respondent: Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.; Rishabh Jain, Adv.; Bhushan, Adv.; and Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 210

Click Here To Read Order