ICAI Vs. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. No. 5520/2009 (Condonation of delay)For the reasons averred, the application is allowed. W. P. (C) 8529/2009, C. M. No. 5519/2009 (Stay Application)The writ petitioners, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), claims to be aggrieved by an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 23. 12. 2008 to the extent that the Commission directed disclosure of the applicant complainant's answer sheet to the information applicant. The applicant had elicited various kinds of information, including a copy of the answer sheet of the examination attempted by him. At the outset, learned ASG who appeared for the Institute submitted that the Division Bench ruling in Pritam Rooj v. University of Calcutta and Ors. AIR 2008 Cal 118 covers the issues since that High Court had the occasion to deal with identical issues, i. e. data disclosure of examination in the form of answer sheet, to an individual who participates in the process. He also conceded that answer sheets do fall within the meaning of the expression "information" under Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI ).

(2.) LEARNED ASG, however, contended that the question as to the right to information and the right of the class of individuals who attempt examinations to access their answer sheets is squarely covered by the rulings of the Supreme Court in Secretary West Bengal Council for Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das 2007 (8) SCC 242 and President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar and anr. 2007 (1) SCC 603. The argument was that the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court unalterably fixed the character of the right, in the sense that the declarations exclude the right of a candidate participating in the examination process to access information about the examination process by demanding copies of answer sheets.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar and anr. 2007 (1) SCC 603 states as follows: "xxxx XXXX XXXX XXXX the Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh bhupeshkurmar Sheth, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one was to be propounded. In the above premises, it is to be considered how far the Board has assured a zero-defect system of evaluation, or a system which is almost foolproof. " xxxx XXXX XXXX XXXX" the said judgment and reasoning was reiterated in Ayan Das's case (supra ).