Page 1

‘  REPORTABLE’   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.823-854 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C ) Nos. 15919- 15950 of 2011)

Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants

Versus

The State Information Commission & Anr.  ….Respondents  

With CIVIL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5433 of 2014)

Public Service Commission U.P.  …..Appellant

Versus     Raghvendra Singh .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2.  In these two appeals the short question which needs  

consideration is  as to whether  the Division Bench of  the  

Kerala High Court by impugned judgment has rightly held  

that the respondents are entitled not only to get information  

with  regard  to  the  scan  copies  of  their  answer  sheet,  

1

Page 2

tabulation-sheet  containing  interview  marks  but  also  

entitled  to  know  the  names  of  the  examiners  who  have  

evaluated the answer sheet.   

3. The  information  sought  for  by  the  respondents  were  

denied  by  the  State  Public  Information  Officer  and  the  

Appellate  Authority.   However,  the  State  Information  

Commission allowed the second appeal and held that there  

is  no  fiduciary  relationship  in  case  of  answer  scripts.  

Further,  the  interview  marks  cannot  be  considered  as  

personal information, since the public authority had already  

decided to publish them.

4.  Both  the  High  Courts  of  Kerala  and  Allahabad  have  

taken the view, following the earlier decisions of this Court  

that no fiduciary relationship exists between the appellants  

and the respondents and, therefore, the information sought  

for have to be supplied to them.

5.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have  

gone  through  the  impugned  judgments  passed  by  the  

2

Page 3

Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam  

and Allahabad.  

6.  So  far  as  the  information  sought  for  by  the  

respondents with regard to the supply of scanned copies of  

his answer-sheet of the written test, copy of the tabulation  

sheet and other information, we are of the opinion that the  

view taken in the impugned judgment with regard to the  

disclosure of these information, do not suffer from error of  

law and the same is fully justified.  However, the view of the  

Kerala High Court is that the information seekers are also  

entitled to get the disclosure of  names of  examiners who  

have evaluated the answer-sheet.  

7.  The view taken by the Kerala High Court holding that no  

fiduciary relationship exists between the University and the  

Commission and the examiners appointed by them cannot  

be sustained in law.  The Kerala High Court while observing  

held:-

“16.What, if any , is the fiduciary relationship of  the PSC qua the examinees?  Performance audit  of  constitutional  institutions  would  only  

3

Page 4

strengthen  the  confidence  of  the  citizenry  in  such institutions.  The PSC is a constitutional  institution.  To stand above board, is one of its  own prime requirements.  There is nothing that  should  deter  disclosure  of  the  contents  of  the  materials that the examinees provide as part of  their  performance in the competition for  being  selected to public service.  The confidence that  may  be  reposed  by  the  examinees  in  the  institution  of  the  PSC  does  not  inspire  the  acceptability  of  a  fiduciary  relationship  that  should  kindle  the  exclusion  of  information  in  relation to the evalution or other details relating  to the examination.  Once the evaluation is over  and  results  are  declared,  no  more  secrecy  is  called  for.   Dissemination of  such information  would only add to the credibility of the PSC, in  the  constitutional  conspectus  in  which  it  is  placed.  A particular examinee would therefore  be entitled to access to information in relation to  that person’s answer scripts.  As regards others,  information in relation to answer scripts may fall  within  the pale  of  “third  party  information”  in  terms of  section 11 of the RTI Act.   This only  means  that  such  information  cannot  be  accessed  except  in  conformity  with  the  provisions contained in section 11.  It does not,  in any manner, provide for any immunity from  access.

17. We shall now examine the next contention  of  PSC  that  there  is  a  fiduciary  relationship  between  it  and  the  examiners  and  as  a  consequence,  it  is  eligible  to  claim  protection  from disclosure, except with the sanction of the  competent  authority, as regards the identity of  the examiners as also the materials  that  were  subjected to the examination.  We have already  approved  TREESA and the different precedents  and commentaries relied on therein as regards  the concept of fiduciary relationship.  We are in  full agreement with the law laid by the Division  Bench of this Court in Centre of Earth Science  

4

Page 5

Studies  (supra),  that  S.8  (1)(e)  deals  with  information  available  with  the  person  in  his  fiduciary  relationship  with  another;  that  information  under  this  head  is  nothing  but  information  in  trust,  which,  but  for  the  relationship  would  not  have  been  conveyed or  known to the person concerned.  What  is it that  the  PSC  holds  in  trust  for  the  examiners?  Nothing.  At the best, it  could be pointed out  that  the  identity  of  the  examiners  has  to  be  insulated  from  public  gaze,  having  regard  to  issues relatable to vulnerability and exposure to  corruption if the identities of the examiners are  disclosed  in  advance.   But,  at  any  rate,  such  issues would go to oblivion after the conclusion  of the evaluation of the answer scripts and the  publication of  the results.   Therefore,  it  would  not be in public interest  to hold that there could  be  a  continued  secrecy  even  as  regards  the  identity  of  the  examiners.   Access  to  such  information, including as to the identity of the  examiners, after the examination and evaluation  process are over, cannot be shied off under any  law or avowed principle of privacy.”

8.  We do not find any substance in the reasoning given by  

the  Kerala  High  Court  on  the  question  of  disclosure  of  

names of the examiners.

9.  In the present case, the PSC has taken upon itself in  

appointing  the  examiners  to  evaluate  the  answer  papers  

and as such, the PSC and examiners stand in a principal-

agent relationship. Here the PSC in the shoes of a Principal  

5

Page 6

has entrusted the task of evaluating the answer papers to  

the Examiners. Consequently, Examiners in the position of  

agents are bound to evaluate the answer papers as per the  

instructions  given  by  the  PSC.  As  a  result,  a  fiduciary  

relationship  is  established  between  the  PSC  and  the  

Examiners.  Therefore,  any  information  shared  between  

them  is  not  liable  to  be  disclosed.  Furthermore,  the  

information seeker has no role to play in this and we don’t  

see any logical reason as to how this will benefit him or the  

public  at  large.   We  would  like  to  point  out  that  the  

disclosure  of  the  identity  of  Examiners  is  in  the  least  

interest of the general public and also any attempt to reveal  

the examiner’s identity will give rise to dire consequences.  

Therefore,  in  our  considered opinion revealing examiner’s  

identity  will  only  lead  to  confusion  and  public  unrest.  

Hence, we are not inclined to agree with the decision of the  

Kerala High Court with respect to the second question.

6

Page 7

10. In the present case the request of the information  

seeker  about  the  information  of  his  answer  sheets  and  

details  of  the  interview  marks  can  be  and  should  be  

provided  to  him.  It  is  not  something  which  a  public  

authority  keeps  it  under  a  fiduciary  capacity.  Even  

disclosing  the  marks  and  the  answer  sheets  to  the  

candidates will ensure that the candidates have been given  

marks  according  to  their  performance  in  the  exam.  This  

practice  will  ensure  a  fair  play  in  this  competitive  

environment, where candidate puts his time in preparing for  

the competitive exams, but, the request of the information  

seeker  about  the  details  of  the  person  who  had  

examined/checked  the  paper  cannot  and  shall  not  be  

provided  to  the  information  seeker  as  the  relationship  

between the public authority i.e. Service Commission and  

the Examiners is totally within fiduciary relationship. The  

Commission has reposed trust on the examiners that they  

will check the exam papers with utmost care, honesty and  

impartially  and,  similarly,  the  Examiners  have  faith  that  

7

Page 8

they will  not  be facing any unfortunate consequences for  

doing their job properly. If we allow disclosing name of the  

examiners in every exam, the unsuccessful candidates may  

try to take revenge from the examiners for doing their job  

properly.  This  may,  further,  create  a  situation where  the  

potential candidates in the next similar exam, especially in  

the same state or in the same level will try to contact the  

disclosed examiners for any potential gain by illegal means  

in the potential exam.    

11. We,  therefore,  allow  these  appeals  in  part  and  

modify  the  judgment  only  to  the  extent  that  the  

respondents-applicants are not entitled to the disclosure of  

names of the examiners as sought for by them.

…………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

…………………………….J. (Arun Mishra)

New Delhi February 4, 2016

8