RTI disclosure of super-speciality exam papers denied where release would undermine merit-based selection and competition.

Question papers and model answers for a super-speciality entrance examination were held exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act because their release would undermine the merit-based selection process. The disclosure request was not treated like cases involving ordinary examinations where papers or suggested answers were already public or openly sold after the test. Given the limited pool of multiple-choice questions, few seats, and the risk that prior papers would encourage memorisation rather than assessment, the examining body's concern about harm to the competitive process was accepted. The information was also protected by statutory exemptions on intellectual property, fiduciary confidence, copyright, and public interest grounds, so refusal of disclosure was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question papers and model answers of the super-speciality entrance examinations were exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the grounds of intellectual property, fiduciary confidence, copyright infringement, and public interest.

Analysis: The disclosure sought was not treated as covered by the same reasoning that applied to other examinations where question papers or suggested answers were already in the public domain or were sold openly after the examination. The super-speciality examination involved a limited pool of multiple-choice questions, few seats, and a selection process where disclosure of all previous question papers with answers could enable memorisation rather than assessment of merit. The examining body's view that disclosure would compromise the selection process and affect the competitive position of candidates was accepted. The request did not come from the examinee, and the possibility of commercial use of the material was also relevant. On a purposive construction of the exemptions, the information was held to be protected by the statutory exemptions and not required to be disclosed in public interest.

Conclusion: The information was exempt from disclosure and the challenge to the refusal of information failed.

---