Can the Identity of Examiners Be Disclosed Under the RTI Act?

Can the Examiners’ Identity Be Revealed Under the RTI Act?

Introduction

This piece of writing explores a key question posed by the Supreme Court in Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) v. State Information Commission. The court deliberated on whether candidates have a right, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, to receive the names of examiners who graded their answer sheets. This ruling provides insight into the balance between transparency and secrecy, particularly regarding public authorities and the agents they hire for certain tasks such as examination grading.

The Role of RTI in Transparency and Accountability

The RTI Act encourages transparency by allowing citizens to access information in the possession of public authorities. The act, however, also provides certain exemptions to protect sensitive information. Section 8(1)(e) exempts disclosure of information imparted in a fiduciary relationship—where one party trusts another to act in good faith. The court’s task in this case was to decide whether the relationship between the Public Service Commission (PSC) and examiners constitutes this fiduciary category.

Assessing Fiduciary Relationships Under the RTI Act

In this judgment, the Supreme Court elaborated on the idea of a fiduciary relationship between the Public Service Commission and the examiners. The court opined that the PSC, as an appointing authority, has a Principal-Agent relationship with the examiners. The examiners are given the responsibility to mark the answer sheets sincerely and honestly, while the PSC takes care that examiners are not subject to risks for diligently carrying out their duties.

The court argued that making examiners’ identities public might subject them to possible retribution from failed candidates or open doors for bribery during future exams. The court, therefore, held that the identity of examiners should be kept confidential in order to ensure the integrity of the examination process.

Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality

The court reaffirmed the principle of candidates’ entitlement to see their answer sheets and interview marks so that there may be fairness and accountability. That access is commensurate with the RTI Act’s mandate to ensure public administration transparency. But the court distinguished between publishing candidates’ performance details and providing information about people who are expected to assess performances.

While facilitating access to personal answer sheets and marks promotes fair play, the court held that revelation of examiners’ identities serves no public interest and may endanger the examination process. It stated that transparency cannot be allowed at the expense of confidentiality where this is required in order to avoid causing harm to individuals.

Key Precedents Discussed

The ruling cited significant judgments, such as Treesa Irish v. Kerala Public Service Commission, in which the court analyzed the scope of a fiduciary relationship between third parties such as examiners and public authorities. In Centre of Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, the court deliberated on the boundaries of disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. These precedents assisted the court in determining the boundaries of fiduciary relationships and protection of confidential information in some situations.

Conclusion

In striking a balance between the principles of transparency and confidentiality, the Supreme Court held that candidates are entitled to see their answer sheets and marks, but examiners’ identities must be kept confidential. The ruling ensures that the integrity of public examinations is maintained, as well as candidates’ rights to fair treatment. The ruling reiterates the need for balanced application of the RTI Act, where transparency has to be weighed against the need to safeguard the interests of persons engaged in public services.