Court allows disclosure of evaluated answer sheets under RTI Act, dismissing petition and ordering costs.

The court held that the respondent was entitled to certified copies of evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, as they are not exempt from disclosure. Despite a procedural lapse in not providing a hearing to recommended candidates, public interest favored disclosure. Evaluated answer sheets were deemed public documents, not third-party information, and not exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The court dismissed the petition, instructing compliance with providing copies and ordering costs to be paid to the Bar Association.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to seek certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets/scripts of the selected candidates.
2. Whether the Commission failed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the 82 recommended candidates as mandated under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act.
3. Whether the evaluated answer sheets fall under the category of third-party information.
4. Whether the evaluated answer sheets are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Certified Copies of Evaluated Answer Sheets:
The court examined the decision in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, where it was held that evaluated answer books are "information" under the RTI Act and every examinee has the right to access their evaluated answer books either by inspecting them or taking certified copies. The court noted that the evaluated answer books do not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which pertains to information held in a fiduciary relationship. The court concluded that the evaluated answer sheets are public documents and do not belong to the candidates, and thus, the respondent No.2 is entitled to access them.

2. Opportunity of Being Heard to 82 Recommended Candidates:
The petitioner argued that the Commission failed to give an opportunity of being heard to the 82 recommended candidates, which is mandatory under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act. The court acknowledged this procedural lapse but emphasized that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for protection of personal information, as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. The court noted that the Commission had concluded that public interest justified the disclosure of the information.

3. Evaluated Answer Sheets as Third-Party Information:
The court addressed whether the evaluated answer sheets should be treated as third-party information. It was argued that for Section 11(1) of the RTI Act to apply, the information must be treated as confidential by the third party, which was not the case here. The court stated that the evaluated answer sheets are public documents and are not confidential. Therefore, the evaluated answer sheets do not qualify as third-party information under the RTI Act.

4. Exemption from Disclosure under Section 8(1)(e):
The court reiterated that the evaluated answer sheets do not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which pertains to information held in a fiduciary relationship. The court referenced the CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case, where it was held that the examining bodies do not hold evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship with the examinees. Consequently, the evaluated answer sheets are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the MPSC to comply with the Commission's decision to provide certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets to respondent No.2 within fifteen days. Additionally, the MPSC was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 5000 as costs to the High Court Bar Association of Manipur. The court emphasized that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm to the interests of the candidates.

---