Supreme Court: Vacancies From Resignations under CUSAT Act Must Follow Communal Rotation  ||  Supreme Court: Forest Land Cannot Be Leased or Used For Agriculture Without Centre’s Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence and Accused’s Role Must Guide Suspension of Sentence under CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitral Awards Cannot be Set Aside For Mere Legal Errors or Misreading of Evidence  ||  SC Acknowledges Child Trafficking as a Grave Reality and Issues Guidelines to Assess Victim Evidence  ||  Allahabad HC: When Parties Extend an Agreement by Conduct, The Arbitration Clause Extends Too  ||  Supreme Court: Issues of Party Capacity and Maintainability Must Be Decided by Arbitral Tribunal  ||  Supreme Court: Omissions in Chief Examination Can Be Rectified During Cross-Examination  ||  Supreme Court: Items Given by Accused to Police Are Not Section 27 Recoveries under Evidence Act  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Institutions Must Pay Court Fees When Filing Disputes in State Tribunal    

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