Details of Marks in Civil Services Exam Can't be Disclosed under RTI: SC

New Delih: The raw and scaled marks of civil services examinations cannot be disclosed under the Right To Investigation (RTI) Act anymore.

The Supreme Court has set aside a five-year-old ruling of the Delhi High Court wherein the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had been directed to disclose the details of marks --raw and scaled-- awarded to the candidates in the civil services (prelims) examination.

A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit noted that disclosure of marks could have some severe negative impact on the evaluation process and not only the prestige, but the very integrity of the system could be compromised.

"Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically," held the bench.

It underscored the difficulties expressed by the UPSC that disclosure could lead to unnecessary resentment, litigation and revealing the identity of evaluators, thereby putting in peril the integrity of the process and inviting hordes of litigation.

"Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest," held the Court.

The bench, however, added that if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to do so.

"If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters," maintained the bench, rejecting the view taken by the high court.

It highlighted that while balancing the right to information, public interest including efficient working of the government, optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information has to be balanced and can be a guiding factor. "The High Court has not applied the said parameters," held the top court.