All. High Court Explains ‘Prima Facie Satisfaction’ of Magistrate Before Summoning/Issuing Process  ||  Kar. HC: Self-Acquired Property Thrown in Common Hotchpot Shall be Treated as Joint Family Property  ||  Bom. HC: Candidates Converting to EWS After Striking Down of SEBC Act Ineligible For Age Relaxation  ||  Del. HC: DDA & MCD Must Put Structural Reforms In Place to Deal With Issue of Illegal Construction  ||  Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking to Block Article Published By The Print on RAW  ||  Supreme Court: Apple Not Responsible to Trace Stolen Iphone Through Unique Identity Number  ||  Del. HC: Mitsubishi Corporation Can’t Deduct TDS on The Amount Not Chargeable to Tax in India  ||  Delhi HC: Prospective Adoptive Parents Can't Demand Their Choice on Which Child to Adopt  ||  Supreme Court: Termination of Woman Nursing Officer on Grounds of Her Marriage is Unconstitutional  ||  Supreme Court: Accused Absolved of Charges Under IPC Can’t Be Charged Under UP Gangsters 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


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


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved