Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors. v. The State Information Commission and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (04 Feb 2016)

Protect identities of examiners to ensure fair play

MANU/SC/0126/2016

Right to Information

The Supreme Court allowed in part appeals questioning the decision of the Kerala High Court that the Respondents were entitled not only to get information with regard to scanned copies of their answer sheet and interview marks but also know the names of the examiners who evaluated the answer sheet. It accepted the High Court’s decision that scanned copies of answer sheets of the written test and other information could be disclosed, but rejected that no fiduciary relationship existed by the Public Service Commission and the examiners, holding instead that examiners appointed by PSC were in the position of agents bound to evaluate the answer papers as per PSC instructions. Accordingly, PSC expected examiners to check exam papers with care, honesty and impartiality; on the other hand examiners expected doing the same without fear of facing “unfortunate consequences”, if candidates started contacting them. It proffered, disclosure of identities of examiners would be of no public benefit, giving rise only to coercion, confusion and public unrest.

Relevant : Section 8 Right to Information Act, 2005

Tags : RTI   DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY   EXAMINER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved