IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.2040/2011]
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India … Appellant
Shaunak H.Satya & Ors. … Respondents
(ONLY EXTRACTS FROM JUDGEMENT GIVEN)
2. The appellant Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short ‘ICAI’) is a body corporate established under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. One of the functions of the appellant council is to conduct the examination of candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants. The first respondent appeared in the Chartered Accountants’ final examination conducted by ICAI in November, 2007. The results were declared in January 2008. The first respondent who was not successful in the examination applied for verification of marks. The appellant carried out the verification in accordance with the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and found that there was no discrepancy in evaluation of answer scripts. The appellant informed the first respondent accordingly.
3. On 18.1.2008 the [SHAUNAK H. SATYA] submitted an application seeking the following information under 13 heads, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’ for short) :
“1) Educational qualification of the examiners & Moderators with subject wise classifications. (you may not give me the names of the examiners & moderators).
2) Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.
3) Instructions issued to the examiners, and moderators oral as well as written if any.
4) Procedure established for selection of examiners & moderators.
5) Model answers if any given to the examiners & moderators if any
6) Remuneration paid to the examiners & moderators.
7) Number of students appearing for exams at all levels in the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)
8) Number of students that passed at the 1st attempt from the above.
9) From the number of students that failed in the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up) from the above, how many students opted for verification of marks as per regulation 38.
10) Procedure adopted at the time of verification of marks as above.
11) Number of students whose marks were positively changed out of those students that opted for verification of marks.
12) Educational qualifications of the persons performing the verification of marks under Regulation 38 & remuneration paid to them.
13) Number of times that the council has revised the marks of any candidate, or any class of candidates, in accordance with regulation 239(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, the criteria used for such discretion, the quantum of such revision, the authority that decides such discretion, and the number of students along with the quantum of revision affected by such revision in the last 5 exams, held at all levels (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up).” (emphasis supplied)
4. The appellant by its reply dated 22.2.2008 gave the following responses/information in response to the 13 queries :
“1. XXX XXX XXX
2&3. Evaluation of answer books is carried out in terms of the guidance including instructions provided by Head Examiners appointed for each subject(s). Subsequently, a review thereof is undertaken for the purpose of moderators.
4. XXX XXX XXX
5. Solutions are given in confidence of examiners for the purpose of evaluation. Services of moderators are utilized in our context for paper setting.
6-12. XXX XXX XXX
13. The Examination Committee in terms of Regulation 39(2) has the authority to revise the marks based on the findings of the Head Examiners and incidental information in the knowledge of the Examination Committee, in its best wisdom. Since the details sought are highly confidential in nature and there is no larger public interest warrants disclosure, the same is denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”(emphasis supplied)
5. Not being satisfied with the response received to his queries, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, by order dated 10.4.2008, concurring with the order of the Chief Public Information Officer of the appellant. The first respondent thereafter filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short ‘CIC’) in regard to queries (1) to (5) and (7) to (13). CIC by order dated 23.12.2008 rejected the appeal in regard to queries 3, 5 and 13 (as also Query 2) while directing the disclosure of information in regard to the other questions. We extract below the reasoning given by the CIC to refuse disclosure in regard to queries 3,5 and 13.
“Re: Query No.3.
This request of the Appellant cannot be without seriously and perhaps irretrievably compromising the entire examination process. An instruction issued by a public authority – in this case, examination conducting authority – to its examiners is strictly confidential. There is an implied contract between the examiners and the examination conducting public authority. It would be inappropriate to disclose this information. This item of information too, like the previous one, attracts section 8(1)(d) being the intellectual property of the public authority having been developed through careful empirical and intellectual study and analysis over the years. I, therefore, hold that this item of query attracts exemption under section 8(1)(e) as well as section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Re : Query No.5.
Respondents have explained that what they provide to the examiners is “solutions” and not “model answers” as assumed by the appellant. For the aid of the students and examinees, “suggested answers” to the questions in an exam are brought out and sold in the market. It would be wholly inappropriate to provide to the students the solutions given to the questions only for the exclusive use of the examiners and moderators. Given the confidentiality of interaction between the public authority holding the examinations and the examiners, the “solutions” qualifies to be items barred by section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This item of information also attracts section 8(1)(d) being the exclusive intellectual property of the public authority. Respondents have rightly advised the appellant to secure the “suggested answers” to the questions from the open market, where these are available for sale.
Re : Query No.13.
I find no infirmity in the reply furnished to the appellant. It is a categorical statement and must be accepted as such. Appellant seems to have certain presumptions and assumptions about what these replies should be. Respondents are not obliged to cater to that. It is therefore held that there shall be no further disclosure of information as regards this item of query.”
6. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of information sought under items 3, 5 and 13, the first respondent approached the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowed the said petition by order dated 30.11.2010 and directed the appellant to supply the information in regard to queries 3, 5 and 13, on the following reasoning :
“According to the Central Information Commission the solutions which have been supplied by the Board to the examiners are given in confidence and therefore, they are entitled to protection under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) does not protect confidential information and the claim of intellectual property has not made by the respondent No.2 anywhere. In the reply it is suggested that the suggested answers are published and sold in open market by the Board. Therefore, there can be no confidentiality about suggested answers and the solutions. In our opinion, the orders of both Authorities in this respect also suffer from non- application of mind and they are therefore liable to be set aside. We find that the right given under the Right to Information Act has been dealt with by the Authorities under that Act in most casual manner without properly applying their minds to the material on record. In our opinion, therefore, information sought against queries Nos.3,5 and 13 could not have been denied by the Authorities to the petitioner. The principal defence of the respondent No.2 is that the information is confidential. Till the result of the examination is declared, the information sought by the petitioner has to be treated as confidential, but once the result is declared, in our opinion, that information cannot be treated as confidential. We were not shown anything which would even indicate that it is necessary to keep the information in relation to the examination which is over and the result is also declared as confidential.”
7. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The appellant submitted that it conducts the following examinations: (i) the common proficiency test; (ii) professional education examination-II (till May 2010); (iii) professional competence examination; (iv) integrated professional competence examination; (v) final examination; and (vi) post qualification course examinations. A person is enrolled as a Chartered Accountant only after passing the common proficiency test, professional educational examination-II/professional competence examination and final examination. The number of candidates who applied for various examinations conducted by ICAI were 2.03 lakhs in 2006, 4.16 lakhs in 2007; 3.97 lakh candidates in 2008 and 4.20 lakhs candidates in 2009. ICAI conducts the examinations in about 343 centres spread over 147 cities throughout the country and abroad. The appellant claims to follow the following elaborate system with established procedures in connection with its examinations, taking utmost care with regard to valuation of answer sheets and preparation of results and also in carrying out verification in case a student applies for the same in accordance with the following Regulations:
“Chartered Accountants with a standing of minimum of 5-7 years in the profession or teachers with a minimum experience of 5-7 years in university education system are empanelled as examiners of the Institute. The eligibility criteria to be empanelled as examiner for the examinations held in November, 2010 was that a chartered accountant with a minimum of 3 years’ standing, if in practice, or with a minimum of 10 yeas standing, if in service and University lecturers with a minimum of 5 years’ teaching experience at graduate/post graduate level in the relevant subjects with examiner ship experience of 5 years. The said criteria is continued to be followed. The bio-data of such persons who wish to be empanelled are scrutinized by the Director of Studies of the Institute in the first instance. Thereafter, Examination Committee considers each such application and takes a decision thereon. The examiners, based on their performance and experience with the system of the ICAI, are invited to take up other assignments of preparation of question paper, suggested solution, marking scheme, etc. and also appointed as Head Examiners to supervise the evaluation carried out by the different examiners in a particular subject from time to time. A question paper and its solution are finalized by different experts in the concerned subject at 3 stages. In addition, the solution is also vetted by Director of Studies of the Institute after the examination is held and before the evaluation of the answer sheets are carried out by examiners. All possible alternate solutions to a particular question as intimated by different examiners in a subject are also included in the solution. Each examiner in a particular subject is issued detailed instructions on marking scheme by the Head Examiners and general guidelines for evaluation issued by the ICAI. In addition, performance of each examiner, to ascertain whether the said examiner has complied with the instructions issued as also the general guidelines of the Institute, is assessed by the Head Examiner at two stages before the declaration of result. The said process has been evolved based on the experience gained in the last 60 years of conducting examinations and to ensure all possible uniformity in evaluation of answer sheets carried out by numerous examiners in a particular subject and to provide justice to the candidates. The examination process/procedure/systems of the ICAI are well in place and have been evolved over several decades out of experience gained. The said process/procedure/systems have adequate checks to ensure fair results and also ensure that due justice is done to each candidate and no candidate ever suffers on any count.”
8. The appellant contends that the information sought as per queries (3) and (5) – that is, instructions and model answers, if any, issued to the examiners and moderators by ICAI cannot be disclosed as they are exempted from disclosure under clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of RTI Act. It is submitted that the request for information is also liable to be rejected under section 9 of the Act. They also contended that in regard to query No.(13), whatever information available had been furnished, apart from generally invoking section 8(1)(e) to claim exemption.
9. On the said contentions, the following questions arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the instructions and solutions to questions (if any) given by ICAI to examiners and moderators, are intellectual property of the ICAI, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third parties and therefore exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act?
(ii) Whether providing access to the information sought (that is instructions and solutions to questions issued by ICAI to examiners and moderators) would involve an infringement of the copyright and therefore the request for information is liable to be rejected under section 9 of the RTI Act?
(iii) Whether the instructions and solutions to questions are information made available to examiners and moderators in their fiduciary capacity and therefore exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act?
(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to furnish to the first respondent five items of information sought (in query No.13) relating to Regulation 39(2) of Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988?
Re: Question (i)
10. The term ‘intellectual property’ refers to a category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of human intellect comprising primarily trade mark, copyright and patent right, as also trade secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights and rights against unfair competition (vide Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 813). Question papers, instructions regarding evaluation and solutions to questions (or model answers) which are furnished to examiners and moderators in connection with evaluation of answer scripts, are literary works which are products of human intellect and therefore subject to a copyright. The paper setters and authors thereof (other than employees of ICAI), who are the first owners thereof are required to assign their copyright in regard to the question papers/solutions in favour of ICAI. We extract below the relevant standard communication sent by ICAI in that behalf:
“The Council is anxious to prevent the unauthorized circulation of Question Papers set for the Chartered Accountants Examinations as well as the solutions thereto. With that object in view, the Council proposes to reserve all copy-rights in the question papers as well as solutions. In order to enable the Council to retain the copy-rights, it has been suggested that it would be advisable to obtain a specific assignment of any copy-rights or rights of publication that you may be deemed to possess in the questions set by you for the Chartered Accountants Examinations and the solutions thereto in favour of the Council. I have no doubt that you will appreciate that this is merely a formality to obviate any misconception likely to arise later on. In response to it, the paper setters/authors give declarations of assignment, assigning their copyrights in the question papers and solutions prepared by them, in favour of ICAI. Insofar as instructions prepared by the employees of ICAI, the copyright vests in ICAI. Consequently, the question papers, solutions to questions and instructions are the intellectual properties of ICAI. The appellant contended that if the question papers, instructions or solutions to questions/model answers are disclosed before the examination is held, it would harm the competitive position of all other candidates who participate in the examination and therefore the exemption under section 8(1)(d) is squarely attracted.”
11. The first respondent does not dispute that the appellant is entitled to claim a copyright in regard to the question papers, solutions/model answers, instructions relating to evaluation and therefore the said material constitute intellectual property of the appellant. But he contends that the exemption under section 8(1)(d) will not be available if the information is merely an intellectual property. The exemption under section 8(1)(d) is available only in regard to such intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of any third party. It was submitted that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the disclosure of the said intellectual property (instructions and solutions/model answers) would harm the competitive position of any third party.
12. Information can be sought under the RTI Act at different stages or different points of time. What is exempted from disclosure at one point of time may cease to be exempted at a later point of time, depending upon the nature of exemption. For example, any information which is exempted from disclosure under section 8, is liable to be disclosed if the application is made in regard to the occurrence or event which took place or occurred or happened twenty years prior to the date of the request, vide section 8(3) of the RTI Act. In other words, information which was exempted from disclosure, if an application is made within twenty years of the occurrence, may not be exempted if the application is made after twenty years. Similarly, if information relating to the intellectual property, that is the question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions, in regard to any particular examination conducted by the appellant cannot be disclosed before the examination is held, as it would harm the competitive position of innumerable third parties who are taking the said examination. Therefore it is obvious that the appellant examining body is not liable to give to any citizen any information relating to question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions relating to a particular examination before the date of such examination. But the position will be different once the examination is held. Disclosure of the question papers, model answers and instructions in regard to any particular examination, would not harm the competitive position of any third party once the examination is held. In fact the question papers are disclosed to everyone at the time of examination. The appellant voluntarily publishes the “suggested answers” in regard to the question papers in the form of a book for sale every year, after the examination. Therefore section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act does not bar or prohibit the disclosure of question papers, model answers (solutions to questions) and instructions if any given to the examiners and moderators after the examination and after the evaluation of answer scripts is completed, as at that stage they will not harm the competitive position of any third party. We therefore reject the contention of the appellant that if an information is exempt at any given point of time, it continues to be exempt for all time to come.
Re : Question (ii)
13. Section 9 of the RTI Act provides that a Central or State Public Information Officer may reject a request for information where providing access to such information would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. The word ‘State’ used in section 9 of RTI Act refers to the Central or State Government, Parliament or Legislature of a State, or any local or other authorities as described under Article 12 of the Constitution. The reason for using the word ‘State’ and not ‘public authority’ in section 9 of RTI Act is apparently because the definition of ‘public authority’ in the Act is wider than the definition of ‘State’ in Article 12, and includes even non-government organizations financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. Be that as it may, an application for information would be rejected under section 9 of RTI Act, only if information sought involves an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. ICAI being a statutory body created by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1948 is ‘State’. The information sought is a material in which ICAI claims a copyright. It is not the case of ICAI that anyone else has a copyright in such material. In fact it has specifically pleaded that even if the question papers, solutions/model answers, or other instructions are prepared by any third party for ICAI, the copyright therein is assigned in favour of ICAI. Providing access to information in respect of which ICAI holds a copyright, does not involve infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. Therefore ICAI is not entitled to claim protection against disclosure under section 9 of the RTI Act.
14. There is yet another reason why section 9 of RTI Act will be inapplicable. The words ‘infringement of copyright’ have a specific connotation. Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides when a copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. Section 52 of the Act enumerates the acts which are not infringement of a copyright. A combined reading of sections 51 and 52(1)(a) of Copyright Act shows that furnishing of information by an examining body, in response to a query under the RTI Act may not be termed as an infringement of copyright. Be that as it may.
Re : Question (iii)
15. We will now consider the third contention of ICAI that the information sought being an information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCALE 645] considered the meaning of the words information available to a person in his fiduciary capacity and observed thus:
“But the words ‘information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship’ are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary – a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer.”
16. The instructions and ‘solutions to questions’ issued to the examiners and moderators in connection with evaluation of answer scripts, as noticed above, is the intellectual property of ICAI. These are made available by ICAI to the examiners and moderators to enable them to evaluate the answer scripts correctly and effectively, in a proper manner, to achieve uniformity and consistency in evaluation, as a large number of evaluators and moderators are engaged by ICAI in connection with the evaluation. The instructions and solutions to questions are given by the ICAI to the examiners and moderators to be held in confidence. The examiners and moderators are required to maintain absolute secrecy and cannot disclose the answer scripts, the evaluation of answer scripts, the instructions of ICAI and the solutions to questions made available by ICAI, to anyone. The examiners and moderators are in the position of agents and ICAI is in the position of principal in regard to such information which ICAI gives to the examiners and moderators to achieve uniformity, consistency and exactness of evaluation of the answer scripts. When anything is given and taken in trust or in confidence, requiring or expecting secrecy and confidentiality to be maintained in that behalf, it is held by the recipient in a fiduciary relationship.
17. It should be noted that section 8(1)(e) uses the words “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. Significantly section 8(1)(e) does not use the words “information available to a public authority in its fiduciary relationship”. The use of the words “person” shows that the holder of the information in a fiduciary relationship need not only be a ‘public authority’ as the word ‘person’ is of much wider import than the word ‘public authority’. Therefore the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority (in this case the examining body) in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to a person in fiduciary relationship. As a consequence, it has to be held that the instructions and solutions to questions communicated by the examining body to the examiners, head-examiners and moderators, are information available to such persons in their fiduciary relationship and therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act.
18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the RTI Act, will have to act in a pro-active manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes on relentlessly. But in regard to other information which do not fall under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, there is a need to proceed with circumspection as it is necessary to find out whether they are exempted from disclosure. One of the objects of democracy is to bring about transparency of information to contain corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving this object does not mean that other equally important public interests including efficient functioning of the governments and public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective. Therefore when section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. Therefore in dealing with information not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in section 8 in a restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other public interests.
19. Among the ten categories of information which are exempted from disclosure under section 8 of RTI Act, six categories which are described in clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h) carry absolute exemption. Information enumerated in clauses (d), (e) and (j) on the other hand get only conditional exemption, that is the exemption is subject to the overriding power of the competent authority under the RTI Act in larger public interest, to direct disclosure of such information. The information referred to in clause (i) relates to an exemption for a specific period, with an obligation to make the said information public after such period. The information relating to intellectual property and the information available to persons in their fiduciary relationship, referred to in clauses (d) and (e) of section 8(1) do not enjoy absolute exemption. Though exempted, if the competent authority under the Act is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information, such information will have to be disclosed. It is needless to say that the competent authority will have to record reasons for holding that an exempted information should be disclosed in larger public interest.
20. In this case the Chief Information Commissioner rightly held that the information sought under queries (3) and (5) were exempted under section 8(1)(e) and that there was no larger public interest requiring denial of the statutory exemption regarding such information. The High Court fell into an error in holding that the information sought under queries (3) and (5) was not exempted.
Re : Question (iv)
21. Query (13) of the first respondent required the appellant to disclose the following information: (i) The number of times ICAI had revised the marks of any candidate or any class of candidates under Regulation 39(2); (ii) the criteria used for exercising such discretion for revising the marks; (iii) the quantum of such revisions; (iv) the authority who decides the exercise of discretion to make such revision; and (v) the number of students (with particulars of quantum of revision) affected by such revision held in the last five examinations at all levels.
22. Regulation 39(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 provides that the council may in its discretion, revise the marks obtained by all candidates or a section of candidates in a particular paper or papers or in the aggregate, in such manner as may be necessary for maintaining its standards of pass percentage provided in the Regulations. Regulation 39(2) thus provides for what is known as ‘moderation’, which is a necessary concomitant of evaluation process of answer scripts where a large number of examiners are engaged to evaluate a large number of answer scripts. This Court explained the standard process of moderation in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission – 2007 (3) SCC 720 thus:
“When a large number of candidates appear for an examination, it is necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer-scripts. Where the number of candidates taking the examination are limited and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself) evaluates the answer-scripts, it is to be assumed that there will be uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take the examination, it will not be possible to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same examiner. It, therefore, becomes necessary to distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the Head Examiner When more than one examiner evaluate the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation. Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. Inevitably therefore, even when experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer scripts, there is difference in average marks and the range of marks awarded, thereby affecting the merit of individual candidates. This apart, there is ‘Hawk- Dove’ effect. Some examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all likelihood of different marks being assigned. If a very well written answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre answer-script may be awarded more marks than the excellent answer-script. In other words, there is ‘reduced valuation’ by a strict examiner and ‘enhanced valuation’ by a liberal examiner. This is known as ‘examiner variability’ or ‘Hawk-Dove effect’. Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners so that the effect of ‘examiner subjectivity’ or ‘examiner variability’ is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of moderation is as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They discuss thoroughly the question paper, the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner and variations in assigning marks are further discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the norms of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms agreed, many examiners tend to deviate from the expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity for strictness or liberality or eroticism or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary. …….
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been followed by the examiners………..
(iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the award of marks without any change if the examiner has followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the top level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of ‘moderation’ would bring in considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity.” Each examining body will have its own standards of ‘moderation’, drawn up with reference to its own experiences and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by it. ICAI shall have to disclose the said standards of moderation followed by it, if it has drawn up the same, in response to part (ii) of first respondent’s query (13).
23. In its communication dated 22.2.2008, ICAI informed the first respondent that under Regulation 39(2), its Examining Committee had the authority to revise the marks based on the findings of the Head Examiners and any incidental information in its knowledge. This answers part (iv) of query (13) as to the authority which decides the exercise of the discretion to make the revision under Regulation 39(2).
24. In regard to parts (i), (iii) and (v) of query (13), ICAI submits that such data is not maintained. Reliance is placed upon the following observations of this Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay: “The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of ‘information’ and ‘right to information’ under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.” As the information sought under parts (i), (iii) and (v) of query (13) are not maintained and is not available in the form of data with the appellant in its records, ICAI is not bound to furnish the same.
General submissions of ICAI
25. The learned counsel of ICAI submitted that there are several hundred examining bodies in the country. With the aspirations of young citizens to secure seats in institutions of higher learning or to qualify for certain professions or to secure jobs, more and more persons participate in more and more examinations. It is quite common for an examining body to conduct examinations for lakhs of candidates that too more than once per year. Conducting examinations involving preparing the question papers, conducting the examinations at various centres all over the country, getting the answer scripts evaluated and declaring results, is an immense task for examining bodies, to be completed within fixed time schedules. If the examining bodies are required to frequently furnish various kinds of information as sought in this case to several applicants, it will add an enormous work load and their existing staff will not be able to cope up with the additional work involved in furnishing information under the RTI Act. It was submitted by ICAI that it conducts several examinations every year where more than four lakhs candidates participate; that out of them, about 15-16% are successful, which means that more than three and half lakhs of candidates are unsuccessful; that if even one percent at those unsuccessful candidates feel dissatisfied with the results and seek all types of unrelated information, the working of ICAI will come to a standstill. It was submitted that for every meaningful user of RTI Act, there are several abusers who will attempt to disrupt the functioning of the examining bodies by seeking huge quantity of information. ICAI submits that the application by the first respondent is a classic case of improper use of the Act, where a candidate who has failed in an examination and who does not even choose to take the subsequent examination has been engaging ICAI in a prolonged litigation by seeking a bundle of information none of which is relevant to decide whether his answer script was properly evaluated, nor have any bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. ICAI submits that there should be an effective control and screening of applications for information by the competent authorities under the Act. We do not agree that first respondent had indulged in improper use of RTI Act. His application is intended to bring about transparency and accountability in the functioning of ICAI. How far he is entitled to the information is a different issue. Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information, after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the applicability of the Act. As the examining bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may.
26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
27. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the CIC is restored, subject to one modification in regard to query (13): ICAI to disclose to the first respondent, the standard criteria, if any, relating to moderation, employed by it, for the purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2).
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).19649/2009
(From the judgement and order dated 22.7.2009 in C.W.P. No.857/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
ARUN KUMAR AGRAWAL & ORS.
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 09/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Subramanium,S.G.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Adv.
Mr. Sreekumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Kamaldeep Dayal, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv.
O R D E R
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
This petition is directed against order dated 22.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, paragraph 11 of which reads thus:
“CIC is yet to decide the question whether the information sought for is covered by Section 24(1) of the Act, whether first proviso applies and exceptions can be claimed under Section 8(1) of the Act. Impugned order dated 29th December, 2008 makes a general observation on the basis of allegations made by the respondent No. 1 in the appeal and observes that allegations of corruption have been made. No final and determinative finding has been given by CIC. It is open to the petitioner to produce the original files and then press that the conditions mentioned in proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act are not satisfied in this case and thus provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act are not required to be examined. Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal has contended that Mr. Virendera Dayal was not appointed by the Directorate of Enforcement and Section 24(1) of the Act is not applicable, even if the report is recently with the said Directorate. These aspects have not been decided by the CIC. It will not be appropriate for this Court to control the proceedings and flexibility and lactitude has to be allowed. The impugned orders can hardly be categorised as adverse orders against the Directorate of Enforcement.”
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any patent legal infirmity requiring interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the parties shall be entitled to make all legally permissible submissions before the Central Information Commissioner.
(A.D. Sharma) (Phoolan Wati Arora)
Court Master Court Master
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10044 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 32855 OF 2009
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA … APPELLANT
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ……………………………………………………………. RESPONDENT
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10045 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 32856 OF 2009
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA & ANR. … APPELLANTS
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ………………………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2683 OF 2010
SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA … APPELLANT
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL ………………………….. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.
Special Leave Petition (c) Nos. 32855 of 2009
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24th November, 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby and whereunder the CIC having allowed the appeal preferred by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, respondent herein, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India to furnish information as sought by him.
3. The respondent Subhash Chandra Agarwal requested the CPIO, Supreme Court of India to arrange to send him a copy of “complete file/s (only as available in Supreme Court) inclusive of copies of complete correspondence exchanged between concerned constitutional authorities with file notings relating to said appointment of Mr. Justice HL Dattu, Mr. Justice AK Ganguly and Mr. Justice RM Lodha superseding seniority of Mr. Justice P Shah, Mr. Justice AK Patnaik and Mr. Justice VK Gupta as allegedly objected to Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) also”. He further requested the CPIO not to invoke Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act (for short ‘the Act’).
4. The CPIO, Supreme Court of India promptly replied to the application so filed under the said Act duly informing the respondent that the Registry does not deal with the matters pertaining to the appointment of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India. Appointments of Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are made by the President of India as per the procedure prescribed by law and the matters relating thereto are not dealt with and handled by the Registry of the Supreme Court of India. The CPIO accordingly informed the respondent that the information sought by him is “neither maintained nor available in the Registry”.
5. The respondent Subhash Chandra Agrawal preferred appeal before the appellate authority of the Supreme Court of India challenging the said order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the CPIO. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a further appeal before the CIC purported it to be under Section 19 of the Act. The CIC having set aside the orders passed by the authorities, directed the CPIO, Supreme Court to furnish the information sought by the respondent. It is that order which is under challenge before us.
6. The CIC mainly relied upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 288 of 2009 titled Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Of course, the CIC also relied on the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India1.
7. The learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the appellants while placing strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India2 inter alia submitted that the ratio of the decision in S.P. Gupta (supra) is required to be understood and appreciated in the light of the observations made by this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association inasmuch as S.P.Gupta’s case has been explained by the larger Bench. submission was that disclosure of the information sought for by the respondent cannot be furnished in public interest. It is in the public interest to keep the appointment and transfer from “needless intrusions by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary”. Learned Attorney General placed particular reliance on the following paragraph of the said decision.
“This is also in accord with the public interest of excluding these appointments and transfers from litigative debate, to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision. The growing tendency of needless intrusion by strangers and busybodies in the functioning of the judiciary under the garb of public interest litigation…”
8. It was further submitted that the appointment of Judges is essentially a discharge of constitutional trust as laid down by this Court in Subhash Sharms Vs. Union of India3. The submission was that the information made available to the Chief Justice of India in respect of appointment of Judges of the High Court and as well as the Supreme Court is held by him in trust and in fiduciary capacity. This submission of the learned Attorney General received considerable support from the various High Courts of the country except the High Court of Guwahati as is evident from their response filed pursuant to the notices issued by this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Prashant Bhushan placed heavy reliance on paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 of the decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta.
10.That on a holistic reading of the said judgment, it appears to us that the Court was mainly dealing with the question as to whether any immunity could be claimed from production of the records in respect of the correspondence between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India and the relevant notings made by them in regard to the transfer of a High Court Judge including the Chief Justices of the High Court which were extremely material for deciding whether there was full and effective consultation? It is observed at more than one place that the nondisclosure of the said documents would seriously handicap the petitioner therein in showing that there was no full and effective consultation with the Chief Justice of India or that the transfer was by way of punishment and not in public interest. It is observed:
“It would become almost impossible for the petitioner, without the aid of these documents, to establish his case, even if it be true.” The Court felt that “all relevant documents should be produced before the court so that the full facts may come before the people, who in a democracy are the ultimate arbiters”. The Court further observed : “We do not see any reason why, if the correspondence between the Law Minister, the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Justice of India and the relevant notes made by them, in regard to discontinuance of an Additional Judge are relevant to the issues arising in a judicial proceeding, they should not be disclosed. … Where it becomes relevant in a judicial proceeding, why should the Court and the opposite party and through them, the people not know what are the reasons for which a particular appointment is made or a particular Additional Judge is discontinued or a particular transfer is effected. We fail to see what harm can be caused by the disclosure of true facts when they become relevant in a judicial proceeding”.
11.Whether the said decision would be applicable when such information is sought under the provisions of the Right to Information Act is an important question that is required to be gone into.
12.Having heard the learned Attorney General and the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the considered opinion that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution is involved in the present case which is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench. The case on hand raises important questions of constitutional importance relating to the position of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India under the Constitution and the independence of the Judiciary in the scheme of the Constitution on the one hand and on the other, fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Right to information is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Right to Information Act merely recognizes the constitutional right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression. Independence of Judiciary forms part of basic structure of the Constitution of India. The independence of Judiciary and the fundamental right to free speech and expression are of a great value and both of them are required to be balanced.
13.The Constitution is fundamentally a public text—the monumental character of a Government and the people— and Supreme Court is required to apply it to resolve public controversies. For, from our beginnings, a most important consequence of the constitutionally created separation of powers has been the Indian habit, extraordinary to other democracies, of casting social, economic, philosophical and political questions in the form of public law remedies, in an attempt to secure ultimate resolution by the Supreme Court. In this way, important aspects of the most fundamental issues confronting our democracy finally arrive in the Supreme Court for judicial determination. Not infrequently, these are the issues upon which contemporary society is most deeply divided. They arouse our deepest emotions. This is one such controversy. William J. Bennan, Jr. in one of his public discourse observed:
“We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as twentieth-century Americans. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time? For the genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be the measure to the vision of our time. Similarly, what those fundamentals mean for us, our descendants will learn, cannot be the measure to the vision of their time. This realization is not, I assure you, a novel one of my own creation. Permit me to quote from one of the opinions of our Court, Weems V. United States, 217 U.S. 349, written nearly a century ago:
“Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. Therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, “designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.” The future is their care and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophesy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be.”
14.The current debate is a sign of a healthy nation. This debate on the Constitution involves great and fundamental issues. Most of the times we reel under the pressure of precedents. We look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time?
15.Following substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arise for consideration:
1. Whether the concept of independence of judiciary requires and demands the prohibition of furnishing of the information sought? Whether the information sought for amounts to interference in the functioning of the judiciary?
2. Whether the information sought for cannot be furnished to avoid any erosion in the credibility of the decisions and to ensure a free and frank expression of honest opinion by all the constitutional functionaries, which is essential for effective consultation and for taking the right decision?
3. Whether the information sought for is exempt under Section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information Act?
16.The above questions involve the interpretation of the Constitution raise great and fundamental issues.
17.For the aforesaid reasons, we direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength. Let the papers be accordingly placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
18. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32856 of 2009 Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 32855 of 2009.
19. Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 32855 of 2009.
(B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 26, 2010
1 (1981) Supp SCC 87
2 (1993) 4 SCC 441
3 (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 574
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2013
(arising out of SLP(C)No.22609 of 2012)
R.K. JAIN …………………….. APPELLANT
UNION OF INDIA & ANR….….RESPONDENTS
J UD G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
2. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the final judgment and order dated 20th April, 2012 passed by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 22/2012. In the said order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th December, 2011, wherein the Single Judge held that “the information sought by the appellant herein is the third party information wherein third party may plead a privacy defence and the proper question would be as to whether divulging of such an information is in the public interest or not.” Thus, the matter has been remitted back to Chief Information Commissioner to consider the issue after following the procedure under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The appellant filed an application to Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPIO’) under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’) on 7th October, 2009 seeking the copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/CESTAT. The Under Secretary, who is the CPIO denied the information by impugned letter dated 15th October, 2009 on the ground that the information sought attracts Clause 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:
2009 – ADIC – CESTAT
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
New Delhi, the 15.10.09
Shri R.K. Jain
Bhishm Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi – 110003
Subject: Application under RTI Act.
Your RTI application No.RTI/09/2406 dated 7.10.2009 seeks information from File No.272 3/2002 Ad1C. The file contains analysis of Annual Confidential Report of Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram only which attracts clause 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore the information sought is denied.
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”
4. On an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the Director (Headquarters) and Appellate Authority by its order dated 18th December, 2009 disallowed the same citing same ground as cited by the CPIO; the relevant portion of which reads as follows:
“2. I have gone through the RTI application dated 07.10.2009, wherein the Appellant had requested the following information;
(A)Copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of File No. 27/3/2002 – Ad. IC relating to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram.
(B)Inspection of all records, documents, files and note sheets of File No.27/3/2002 – Ad. IC.
(C)Copies of records pointed out during / after inspection.
3. I have gone through the reply dated 15.10.2009 of the Under Secretary, Ad. ICCESTAT given to the Appellant stating that as the file contained analysis of the Annual Confidential Report of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, furnishing of information is exempted under Section 9 (1) (j) of the R.T.I. Act.
5. The provision of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 under which the information has been denied by the CPIO is reproduced hereunder:
“Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information……”
6. File No.27/3/2002Ad. 1C deals with follow up action on the ACR for the year 2000-2001 in respect of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Judicial), CEGAT” (now CESTAT). The matter discussed therein is personal and I am not inclined to accept the view of the Appellant that since Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram is holding the post of Member (Judicial), CESTAT, larger public interest is involved, which therefore, ousts the exemption provided under Section 8 (1) (j). Moreover, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram is still serving in the CESTAT and the ACR for the year 20002001 is still live and relevant insofar as her service is concerned. Therefore, it may not be proper to rush up to the conclusion that the matter is over and therefore, the information could have been given by the CPIO under Section 8(1) (i). The file contains only 2 pages of the notes and 5 pages of the correspondence, in which the ACR of the officer and the matter connected thereto have been discussed, which is exempt from disclosure under the aforesaid Section. The file contains no other information, which can be segregated and provided to the Appellant.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is disallowed.”
5. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act which was also rejected on 22nd April, 2010 with the following observations:
“4. Appellant’s plea is that since the matter dealt in the abovementioned File related to the integrity of a public servant, the disclosure of the requested information should be authorized in public interest.
5. It is not in doubt that the file referred to by the appellant related to the Annual Confidential Record of a third party, Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and was specific to substantiation by the Reporting Officer of the comments made in her ACRs about the third – party’s integrity. Therefore, appellant’s plea that the matter was about a public servant’s integrity per se is not valid. The ACR examines all aspects of the performance and the personality of a public servant – integrity being one of them. An examination of the aspect of integrity as part of the CR cannot, therefore, be equated with the vigilance enquiry against a public servant. Appellant was in error in equating the two.
6. It has been the consistent position of this Commission that ACR grades can and should be disclosed to the person to whom the ACRs related and not to the third – parties except under exceptional circumstances. Commission’s decision in P.K. Sarvin Vs. Directorate General of Works (CPWD); Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00422; Date of Decision; 19.02.2009 followed a Supreme Court order in Dev Dutt Vs. UOI (Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002).
7. An examination on file of the comments made by the reporting and the reviewing officers in the ACRs of a public servant, stands on the same footing as the ACRs itself. It cannot, therefore, be authorized to be disclosed to a third party. In fact, even disclosure of such files to the public servant to whom the ACRs may relate is itself open to debate.
8. In view of the above, I am not in a position to authorize disclosure of the information.”
6. On being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P(C) No. 6756 of 2010 before the Delhi High Court which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 8th December, 2011 relying on a judgment of Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216. The learned Single Judge while observing that except incases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the officer himself/herself, remanded the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC for short) for considering the issue whether, in the larger public interest, the information sought by the appellant could be disclosed. It was observed that if the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought by the appellant, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of Act.
7. On an appeal to the above order, by the impugned judgment dated 20th April, 2012 the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No.22 of 2012 dismissed the same. The Division Bench held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court Coordinate Bench in Arvind Kejriwal case (supra) binds the Court on all fours to the said case also. The Division Bench further held that the procedure under Section 11 (1) is mandatory and has to be followed which includes giving of notice to the concerned officer whose ACR was sought for. If that officer, pleads private defence such defence has to be examined while deciding the issue as to whether the private defence is to prevail or there is an element of overriding public interest which would outweigh the private defence.
8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant wanted information in a separate file other than the ACR file, namely, the “follow up action” which was taken by the Ministry of Finance about the remarks against ‘integrity’ in the ACR of the Member. According to him, it was different from asking the copy of the ACR itself. However, we find that the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing ordered for production of the original records and after perusing the same came to the conclusion that the information sought for was not different or distinguished from ACR. The learned Single Judge held that the said file contains correspondence in relation to the remarks recorded by the President of the CESTAT in relation to Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, a Member and also contains the reasons why the said remarks have eventually been dropped. Therefore, recordings made in the said file constitute an integral part of the ACR record of the officer in question. Mr. Bhushan then submitted that ACR of a public servant has a relationship with public activity as he discharges public duties and, therefore, the matter is of a public interest; asking for such information does not amount to any unwarranted invasion in the privacy of public servant. Referring to this Court’s decision in the case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, it was submitted that when such information can be supplied to the Parliament, the informationrelating to the ACR cannot be treated as personal document or private document.
9. It was also contended that with respect to this issue there are conflicting decisions of Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson Sebastian reported in 2010 ( 2) KLT 233 and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216.
10. Shri A. S. Chandiok, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, in reply contended that the information relating to ACR relates to the personal information and may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual, therefore, according to him the information sought for by the appellant relating to analysis of ACR of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and hence the same cannot be furnished to the appellant. He relied upon decision of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and others, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records, the judgements as referred above and the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
12. Section 8 deals with exemption from disclosure of information. Under clause (j) of Section 8(1), there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The said clause reads as follows:
“Section 8 Exemption from disclosure of information.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”
13. On the other hand Section 11 deals with third party information and the circumstances when such information can be disclosed and the manner in which it is to be disclosed, if so decided by the Competent Authority. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer intends to disclose any such information or record on a request made under the Act, in such case after written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to such request or if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. Section 11(1) is quoted hereunder:
“Section 11 Third party information.(1)
Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:
Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.”
14. In Centre for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson Sebastian reported in 2010(2) KLT 233 the Kerala HighCourt considered the question whether the information sought relates to personal information of otheremployees, the disclosure of which is prohibitedunder Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In that case the Kerala High Court noticed that the information sought for by the first respondent pertains to copies of documents furnished in a domestic enquiry against one of the employees of the appellant organization. Particulars of confidential reports maintained in respect of co-employees in the above said case (all of whom were Scientists) were sought from the appellant organisation. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court after noticing the relevant provisions of RTI Act held that documents produced in a domestic enquiry cannot be treated as documents relating to personal information of a person, disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such person. The Court further held that the confidential reports of the employees maintained by the employer cannot be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee and publication of the same is not prohibited under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
15. The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216 considered Section 11 of the RTI Act.The Court held that once the information seeker isprovided information relating to a third party, it isno longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information tothe whole World. Therefore, for providing the information the procedure outlined under Section11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The following was the observation made by the Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal (supra):
“22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents of which copies are sought are in the personal files of officers working at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary, Director, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Government of India. Appointments to these posts are made on a comparative assessment of the relative merits of various officers by a departmental promotion committee or a selection committee, as the case may be. The evaluation of the past performance of these officers is contained in the ACRs. On the basis of the comparative assessment a grading is given. Such information cannot but be viewed as personal to such officers. Visàvis a person who is not an employee of the Government of India and is seeking such information as a member of the public, such information has to be viewed as Constituting ‘third party information’. This can be contrasted with a situation where a government employee is seeking information concerning his own grading, ACR etc. That obviously does not involve ‘third party’ information.
23. What is, however, important to note is that it is not as if such information is totally exempt from disclosure. When an application is made seeking such information, notice would be issued by the CIC or the CPIOs or the State Commission, as the case may be, to such ‘third party’ and after hearing such third party, a decision will be taken by the CIC or the CPIOs or the State Commission whether or not to order disclosure of such information. The third party may plead a ‘privacy’ defence. But such defence may, for good reasons, be overruled. In other words, after following the procedure outlined in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the CIC may still decide that information should be disclosed in public interest overruling any objection that the third party may have to the disclosure of such information.
24. Given the above procedure, it is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the word ‘or’ occurring in Section 11(1) in the phrase information “which relates to or has been supplied by a third party” should be read as ‘and’. Clearly, information relating to a third party would also be third party information within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Information provided by such third party would of course also be third party information. These two distinct categories of third party information have been recognized under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is not possible for this Court in the circumstances to read the word ‘or’ as ‘and’. The mere fact that inspection of such files was permitted, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) does not mean that, at the stage of furnishing copies of the documents inspected, the said procedure can be waived. In fact, the procedure should have been followed even prior to permitting inspection, but now the clock cannot be put back as far as that is concerned.
25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet another situation where the officer may have no qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act.
26. This Court, therefore, holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Mr. Kejriwal. Whatever may have been the past practice when disclosure was ordered of information contained in the files relating to appointment of officers and which information included their ACRs, grading, vigilance clearance etc., the mandatory procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The short question framed by this Court in the first paragraph of this judgment was answered in the affirmative by the CIC. This Court reverses the CIC’s impugned order and answers it in the negative.
27. The impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC and the consequential order dated 19th November 2008 of the CIC are hereby set aside. The appeals by Mr. Kejriwal will be restored to the file of the CIC for compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) RTI Act limited to the information Mr. Kejriwal now seeks.”
16. Recently similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212. That was a case in which Central Information Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service career of the third party to the said case and also denied the details relating to assets, liabilities, moveable and immovable properties of the third party on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In that case this Court also considered the question whether the orders of censure/punishment, etc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organization, commonly known as Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. This Court after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of RTI Act held:
“11. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have been accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is: whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be “personal information” as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activityor public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
14. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.”
17. In view of the discussion made above and the decision in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra), as the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR and the ‘follow up action’ taken therein on the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
APRIL 16, 2013.
Content for item 5
Content for item 6
Content for item 7
Content for item 8
Content for item 9
Content for item 10
Content for item 11
Content for item 12
Content for item 13
Content for item 14
Content for item 15
Content for item 16
Content for item 17
Content for item 18
Content for item 19
Content for item 20