HAMEN BHARALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on similar facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) THE sole grievance raised in the writ petitions and the entitlement claimed by the petitioners is with regard to their right to receive photocopies of the answer scripts in the concerned subjects for which they had applied under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE examination in question in which the petitioners had appeared is the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006 held by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) for recruitment to vacant posts in the Assam Civil Service, Class-I (Junior Grade) and allied services. According to the petitioners, on the strength of an order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Assam, in a proceeding initiated by three other persons (the petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) 3054/2009, Sri Nilav Deka Goswami was a party to the said proceeding) the State Information Commissioner had issued directions to the Commission to furnish Xerox copies of the answer scripts to the candidates as and when applications are made by any candidate. THE petitioners have stated and averred that pursuant to the said order dated 3.7.2009 they had applied for answer scripts of the papers in which they have been shown to have secured low marks in the statement of marks supplied to them by the Commission. However, the Commission had not furnished photocopies of the answer scripts applied for by the petitioners leaving them with no option but to move this Court by way of the present writ petitions.

(3.) THE writ petitioners contend that the answer scripts constitute information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and the right to receive such information, within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act, extends to a right to be furnished with the photocpies of the answer scripts. It is also contended that the Public Service Commission is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act obliging the said authority to make available the required 'information' which has been denied in the present case. THE respondent Public Service Commission, who is also the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3218/2009, contends to the contrary. According to the Commission, the evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates in the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006 constitute information received in a fiduciary capacity and therefore, the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act dispenses the obligation to make available photocopies of the answer scripts to the candidates who had appeared in the said examination. According to the Commission, the right to information is a facet of the freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and such right is subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed under Article 19(2). Referring to several judgments of the Apex Court, particularly in the cases of (1) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27; (2) Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 306; (3) People's Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2004) 2 SCC 476; (4) Pramod Kumar Srivastva Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714; (5) Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan and Anr., reported in (2004) 13 SCC 383; and (6) Secretary, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das and Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242 it is the contention of the Commission that to make available the answer scripts to a candidate is to permit him to make a self assessment/evaluation of the answers given by him which is not contemplated by law. According to the Commission, such a course of action would inevitably delay the finalisation of the results making the system unworkable. According to the Commission, as public policy demands a finality to the process of any examination it will be in public interest not to acknowledge the claimed right in favour of the candidates. THE preamble to the Act has also been referred to lay stress on the fact that the right to receive information should be understood in a balanced manner when such right is likely to come in conflict with different facets of public interest including efficient operations of the authority. That apart, it is the case of the Commission that in the writ petition filed no foundation has been laid to substantiate the right claimed and therefore, the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to, the core of which have been noticed above, would also apply in the case of a public examination conducted by a statutory or a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission while adjudicating claims under the Right to Information Act, 2005.