Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved