UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. versus ANGESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

Furnishing of raw marks for Civil Services Examination cannot be directed mechanically under RTI Act; balancing requirement for transparency and accountability against public interest, confidentiality, and fiscal resources, such disclosure is not automatic. Courts may direct disclosure if public interest is shown, or if rules/practice require it, but the impugned orders directing disclosure were given without considering these parameters and are set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Union Public Service Commission; Respondent: Angesh Kumar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Disposition, Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed, impugned High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Examination Marks, Confidentiality of Examination Process, Balancing Transparency and Fiscal Resources
Administrative Law Right to Information Disclosure of Examination Marks Confidentiality of Examination Process Balancing Transparency and Fiscal Resources

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Public Service Commission

Appellant

Angesh Kumar & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Disposition, Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UPSC is required to disclose raw and scaled marks of Civil Services (Preliminary) examination under RTI Act
  2. 2 Whether furnishing raw marks is in public interest considering confidentiality and optimum fiscal resource use

Ratio Decidendi

Furnishing of raw marks for Civil Services Examination cannot be directed mechanically under RTI Act; balancing requirement for transparency and accountability against public interest, confidentiality, and fiscal resources, such disclosure is not automatic. Courts may direct disclosure if public interest is shown, or if rules/practice require it, but the impugned orders directing disclosure were given without considering these parameters and are set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed, impugned High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned orders of High Court set aside.
  • Writ petitions dismissed.