Court allows appeal, holds information exempt from disclosure under RTI Act, sets aside CIC orders.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the CIC and the learned Single Judge. The Court held that the information sought was not to be divulged in the public interest and was exempt from disclosure under a purposive construction of Section 8 of the RTI Act. No order was made as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Refusal to supply information under RTI Act.
3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Shaunak H. Satya.
4. Intellectual property and public interest.
5. Fiduciary relationship and confidentiality.
6. Public interest and transparency.

Summary:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal impugned the order dated 22nd December 2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing in limine WP(C) No. 8558/2010. Notice of this appeal and the application for condonation of 106 days delay in filing this appeal was issued vide order dated 26th May 2011.

2. Refusal to Supply Information under RTI Act:
The respondent sought certified copies of original question papers and correct answers of all Mch super-speciality entrance exams conducted from 2005-2010. The Information Officer of the appellant refused to supply the information citing that the questions and their answers are intellectual property of AIIMS and their disclosure would be against larger public interest, invoking Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgment in Shaunak H. Satya:
The appellant argued that the subject matter of this appeal is not covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shaunak H. Satya as the facts and circumstances are completely different. The Supreme Court in Shaunak H. Satya dealt with the disclosure of question papers and suggested answers which were already in the public domain, unlike the present case.

4. Intellectual Property and Public Interest:
The CIC directed the appellant to provide the information, noting that the question papers could not be termed as intellectual property and the appellant had been unable to invoke any exemption sub-clause of Section 8(1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge upheld this decision, observing that the appellant had not shown how the disclosure would adversely affect the competitive position of any third party.

5. Fiduciary Relationship and Confidentiality:
The appellant contended that there was no fiduciary relationship between the experts who helped develop the question bank and the appellant, and thus Section 8(1)(e) was not attracted. The Supreme Court in Shaunak H. Satya held that the instructions and solutions to questions communicated by the examining body to the examiners are information available in their fiduciary relationship and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d).

6. Public Interest and Transparency:
The appellant argued that disclosure of the question papers would compromise the selection process, as it would lead to selection of students with good memory rather than an analytical mind. The Court agreed, stating that the nature of the examination is materially different from the one considered by the Supreme Court in Shaunak H. Satya. The Court emphasized the need to balance transparency and accountability with the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and efficient operation of public authorities.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the CIC and the learned Single Judge were set aside. The Court held that it is not in public interest to divulge the information sought, and the information is exempt from disclosure under a purposive construction of Section 8 of the RTI Act. No order as to costs.

---