Supreme Court rules on disclosure of Interview Board members under Right to Information Act

The Supreme Court held that the Commission was not obligated to disclose the names of Interview Board members under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It emphasized the need to balance the right to information with the right to privacy, citing exemptions under Section 8 of the Act to protect the safety and privacy of the Board members. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling in favor of the Commission and highlighting that disclosing such information could endanger the safety of the members without serving any significant public interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Duty of the Commission to disclose names of Interview Board members.
2. Applicability of Section 8 exemptions under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Fiduciary relationship between the Commission and the interviewers/examinees.
4. Balancing right to information with right to privacy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Duty of the Commission to Disclose Names of Interview Board Members:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Commission was obligated to disclose the names of the members of the Interview Board. The Court noted that the Commission completed the selection process based on viva voce tests and recommended the selected candidates to the State of Bihar. The respondent sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which included the names and addresses of the Interview Board members. The Court held that the Commission was not bound to disclose this information as it could endanger the lives or physical safety of the members and would serve no public purpose.

2. Applicability of Section 8 Exemptions under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The Court analyzed the applicability of Section 8 exemptions, particularly Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g). Section 8(1)(e) exempts information available in fiduciary relationships unless larger public interest warrants disclosure. Section 8(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would endanger life or physical safety. The Court concluded that the Commission could claim exemption under Section 8(1)(g) because disclosing the names and addresses of Interview Board members could endanger their lives or physical safety.

3. Fiduciary Relationship between the Commission and the Interviewers/Examinees:
The Court referred to the Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. to determine if a fiduciary relationship existed. It held that the Commission did not have a fiduciary relationship with the interviewers or candidates. The relationship between the examining body and the interviewers was likened to a principal-agent relationship, not a fiduciary one. Therefore, the Commission could not claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e).

4. Balancing Right to Information with Right to Privacy:
The Court emphasized the need to balance the right to information with the right to privacy, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It stated that while the right to information is fundamental, it is not uncontrolled and must be balanced against the right to privacy. The Court noted that the disclosure of the names and addresses of Interview Board members would not only endanger their safety but also invade their privacy without serving any larger public interest.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and held that the Commission was not bound to disclose the names and addresses of the Interview Board members. The Court emphasized that the right to information must be balanced with the right to privacy and that exemptions under Section 8 of the Act were applicable in this case to protect the safety and privacy of the Interview Board members.

---