The Allahabad High Court has held that if the information sought is given and perusal of records is permitted, it would suffice the requirements under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that providing copies of documents is not always necessary.

It held that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is satisfied if marks of a public exam are furnished. The High Court added that when sufficient information has been given, providing photocopies of answer sheets would not be necessary.

The Petition before the High Court was filed by the Union of India and Public Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, challenging the orders of the Central Information Commission as well as the order dismissing their review petition.

The Division Bench of Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi and Justice Ajit Kumar held, “We may further observe that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied. It may not be necessary always to provide the copies of the official records/ documents which the department considers would neither be necessary nor, would serve any purpose practically for which the information has been sought. If sufficient information is there and perusal of records is permitted, it should suffice the need qua mandate contained under the Act, 2005.”

“Thus, according to us, sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to reversed”, it added.

Advocate Krishna Ji Shukla represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ashish Kumar Srivastava represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A written test was held by the respondent Railways for selection for the post of Legal Assistant. One Santosh Kumar, Office Superintendent-II, appeared in it and later made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, asking for marks as well as photostat copies of the answer sheets of three candidates. The Senior Personnel Officer, acting as nodal officer, Public Information, supplied a copy of the question paper demanded, but insofar as the photocopies of the answer sheets were demanded, they were refused. However, the said Santosh Kumar was permitted to peruse the answer sheet on any working day. The information as to marks was also not disclosed. He filed an appeal against the order before the appellate authority.

The appellate authority, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, directed the supply of the photocopies of answer sheets demanded by the appellant for Law Assistant Exams. Though the petitioners revealed the marks obtained by the three candidates to Santosh Kumar, but instead of supplying the photocopies of answer sheets, they filed a review application, taking the plea that in the light of Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commission itself, such an information could be declined under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that Indian Railways would fall under the category of Public Authority whose main action is not to conduct examinations, but is to conduct examinations to fill up the posts and, therefore, answer sheets could have been supplied. It was in such circumstances that the petitioners approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 8(1)(j) of Act, 2005, the Bench explained, “Thus, in substance, any information that does not invade the privacy of any individual may be withheld and the authority may not be placed under obligation to give this information, but otherwise, if an information can be given looking to larger public interest or where public activity may be involved, then such information shall be given.”

Reference was also made to Section 11, which speaks of an obligation in the matter of third-party information. As per the Bench, sufficient safeguards have been provided in the event any third-party information is sought, and in such circumstances, the authority, which is under the obligation to give information, has to give notice to that third party to give its reply before the information is given. “The main threat is on the confidentiality of information on the principle of right to privacy”, it added.

The Bench clarified that in a matter where, in general, a public interest may be involved, the information must be given in a realm. The object of the Act is to give information subject to the riders created under Section 8. The Bench was thus of the view that wherever there is public interest involved, and there is absolutely no private information sought for, the authority would endeavour to furnish the information sought for.

The Bench stated, “In the instant case information required was relating to public examination held by the respondents for the post of Legal Assistant to which the applicant namely respondent no. 4 was an applicant like others regarding whose information was sought. The information was sought regarding marks obtained and we fail to understand as to how this information is private information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a candidate. All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared. “

The Bench thus concluded that sufficient information had been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners was not necessary. Partly allowing the writ petition, the Bench directed the respondents to provide photocopies of the answer sheets of the candidates. “Since the petitioners have not raised any irregularity in his answer sheets therefore, information regarding marks is taken to be sufficient”, it held.

Cause Title:Union Of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive And Another v. Central Information Commission New Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:44589-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Krishna Ji Shukla, Shekhar Kumar Yadav

Respondent: Advocate Ashish Kumar Srivastava

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Swarupama ChaturvediJustice Ajit Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.