2011 (3) TMI 1299 - HC - Indian Laws

Court affirms Right to Information Act application to Kerala Public Service Commission; stresses transparency and public access

The court upheld the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Kerala Public Service Commission, rejecting the PSC's arguments for ... Definition of 'information' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - public authority under the RTI Act - fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - third party information under Section 11 of the RTI Act - RTI Act overriding other laws (Section 22) - access to examination materials and answer scripts - rules permitting destruction of records and non-disclosure of destroyed recordsPublic authority under the RTI Act - definition of 'information' under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Applicability of the RTI Act to the Kerala Public Service Commission and the scope of the statutory definition of 'information' - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the PSC falls within the definition of a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and cannot claim institutional immunity from the obligations of the Act. The statutory definition of 'information' in Section 2 must be given its primacy; where the legislature defines a term to 'mean' certain things, that definition governs unless the context otherwise requires. The PSC's attempt to restrict the meaning of 'information' by reference to Article 19(1)(a) or earlier constitutional jurisprudence was rejected: those precedents do not define the term for the purposes of the RTI Act and cannot override the clear statutory definition. Consequently, there is no scope for judicially engrafting an institutional exception for PSC-held information merely because of its constitutional status. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 11, 13]PSC is subject to the RTI Act and the statutory definition of 'information' governs its obligations; the PSC cannot exclude itself from the Act.Access to examination materials and answer scripts - third party information under Section 11 of the RTI Act - Whether information relating to examinations (answer scripts, marks, interview marks and related materials) held by the PSC is accessible under the RTI Act - HELD THAT: - The Court held that disclosure of examination materials is generally consistent with the object of transparency. An examinee is entitled to access information relating to that candidate's answer scripts. Information relating to other candidates may attract the safeguards for 'third party information' under Section 11, but that statutory regime does not create an immunity from access; it only prescribes the procedure and safeguards for disclosure. The earlier proposition in Paritosh that such materials should be kept secret absent statutory intervention was superseded by the legislative scheme embodied in the RTI Act and its limited exemptions. [Paras 16, 17, 18]Answer scripts and related examination materials are accessible under the RTI Act (subject to Section 11 procedures for third party information and other statutory exemptions).Fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - Validity of PSC's claim of a fiduciary relationship (with examinees, examiners and the public) as a basis to withhold information - HELD THAT: - The Court adopted the ordinary legal meaning of 'fiduciary relationship' as applicable to Section 8(1)(e). It rejected the PSC's contention that it holds information in trust either for examinees or for examiners such that disclosure must be refused. The confidence reposed by examinees does not convert the PSC's custody of examination materials into a fiduciary relationship attracting exemption. Similarly, any need to protect the identities of examiners to prevent corruption is temporal; after evaluation and declaration of results, continued secrecy of examiner identity or other materials cannot be maintained as a fiduciary shield. The broader claim that the PSC holds a public interest fiduciary status vis-a -vis society to exclude examination materials from the RTI regime was also repelled: the RTI Act's transparency objective and its specified exemptions are the statutory means to balance secrecy and disclosure. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18]PSC's claim of a fiduciary relationship as a ground to withhold examination-related information under Section 8(1)(e) is rejected.Rules permitting destruction of records and non-disclosure of destroyed records - Whether PSC can be compelled to disclose records that have been destroyed in accordance with its rules and whether penalties may be imposed for non-disclosure of such destroyed records - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised the PSC's rule-making power to provide for destruction of records. Where records have been destroyed in accordance with rules validly made under constitutional and statutory powers and those rules are not repugnant to the RTI Act, the PSC cannot be compelled to disclose such destroyed records. Consequently, non-disclosure of destroyed records does not attract penalty so long as destruction complied with the enabling rules. [Paras 20]Records destroyed in accordance with PSC rules need not be disclosed and no penalty can be imposed for non-disclosure of such destroyed records.RTI Act overriding other laws (Section 22) - Whether PSC's internal rules governing provision of copies, alternative modes of access or cost considerations can exclude the operation of the RTI Act - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the RTI Act is a self-contained statutory code enacted against the backdrop of earlier law and that Section 22 makes the RTI Act operate notwithstanding inconsistency with other laws or instruments. Consequently, the existence of PSC rules providing modes of access, fees or internal procedures cannot serve as a judicially-recognised ground to exclude or limit the operation of the RTI Act. Administrative inconvenience or expense is not a permissible basis to refuse compliance with the statute. [Paras 21, 22]PSC rules on issuance of copies or administrative burden cannot displace or exclude the RTI Act; the Act prevails and administrative difficulty is not a valid ground to refuse compliance.Final Conclusion: The writ petitions challenging the State Information Commission's direction were dismissed: the RTI Act applies to the Kerala Public Service Commission; examination materials (including answer scripts and marks) are subject to disclosure under the RTI Act (with Section 11 safeguards for third party information); the PSC's fiduciary relationship plea to withhold such information is rejected; records lawfully destroyed under PSC rules need not be disclosed and attract no penalty; and PSC's internal rules or administrative burdens do not exclude the operation of the RTI Act. Orders imposing penalties are set aside and PSC is granted statutory time from today to comply with SIC directions. Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC).2. The extent of information disclosure under the RTI Act concerning examination materials.3. The concept of fiduciary relationship and its applicability to PSC.4. The impact of existing rules and regulations of PSC on information disclosure under the RTI Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the RTI Act to the Kerala Public Service Commission:The judgment addresses the primary question of whether the RTI Act applies to the PSC. The court observed that the PSC, being a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, is subject to the obligations of the Act. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that all citizens have the right to information held by or under the control of any public authority, which includes the PSC. The court emphasized that there is no institutional exception or exemption for the PSC under Section 8 of the RTI Act, which lists the types of information exempt from disclosure. Therefore, the PSC cannot claim immunity from the obligations of the RTI Act.2. Extent of Information Disclosure Under the RTI Act Concerning Examination Materials:The court examined whether information related to examination materials, such as answer scripts and marks, falls within the ambit of the RTI Act. The PSC argued that such information should be excluded, citing the potential administrative inconvenience and the need for finality in examination results. However, the court held that the RTI Act mandates maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions. It stated that the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is broad and includes any material in any form. The court rejected the PSC's contention that the concept of 'information' should be restricted to what is deducible from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court upheld the view that transparency in examination processes would enhance the credibility of the PSC.3. Concept of Fiduciary Relationship and Its Applicability to PSC:The PSC claimed that it holds a fiduciary relationship with examinees, examiners, and the public at large, which should protect certain information from disclosure. The court analyzed the concept of fiduciary relationship as defined in legal dictionaries and previous judgments. It concluded that the PSC does not hold any fiduciary relationship with examinees that would prevent the disclosure of answer scripts and related information. The court also dismissed the claim of fiduciary relationship between the PSC and examiners, stating that the identity of examiners and examination materials do not warrant continued secrecy after the evaluation process is completed. The court emphasized that transparency and access to information would only strengthen public confidence in the PSC.4. Impact of Existing Rules and Regulations of PSC on Information Disclosure Under the RTI Act:The PSC argued that its existing rules for the destruction of records and issuance of information should take precedence over the RTI Act. The court acknowledged that the PSC has the authority to make rules regarding the destruction of records. However, it held that the RTI Act, being a statutory provision, overrides any inconsistent rules or regulations. The court stated that the PSC cannot be compelled to disclose information that has been destroyed in accordance with its rules. Additionally, the court rejected the PSC's plea that it should not be compelled to issue information under the RTI Act if alternate methods are provided by its rules. The court emphasized that Section 22 of the RTI Act provides for its overriding effect over other laws, and any modification to this provision must be made through legislative procedures.Conclusion:The court upheld the applicability of the RTI Act to the PSC and rejected the PSC's arguments for restricting the disclosure of examination-related information. It emphasized the importance of transparency and public access to information in enhancing the credibility of public authorities. The court also clarified that the PSC's rules for record destruction and information issuance do not override the provisions of the RTI Act. The impugned decisions of the State Information Commission were upheld, with the exception of information destroyed in accordance with the PSC's rules. The court set aside any penalties imposed on the PSC and provided statutory time for compliance with the SIC's directions.