Supreme Court of India
THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIAversusSHAUNAK H.SATYA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 640
- Decided
- 2 September 2011
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The Court held that ICAI’s question papers, instructions and solutions are its intellectual property but are exempt from disclosure only before the examination under s.8(1)(d); after the examination they are not exempt, they are also exempt as fiduciary information under s.8(1)(e), s.9 does not apply, and the High Court’s order was set aside with the CIC order restored, subject to disclosure of moderation standards.
Summary
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) conducted examinations for chartered accountants and was asked by Shaunak H. Satya, a failed candidate, to disclose the instructions, model answers and related materials given to examiners and moderators under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The issues were whether such materials are ICAI's intellectual property exempt under s.8(1)(d), whether disclosure would infringe copyright under s.9, whether they constitute fiduciary information exempt under s.8(1)(e), and whether the High Court was correct in ordering disclosure of moderation data under query 13. The Supreme Court held that the materials are indeed ICAI's intellectual property but are exempt from disclosure only before the examination; after the exam they may be disclosed, and they are also exempt as fiduciary information, while s.9 does not apply because ICAI is a ‘State’ body. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the CIC’s order restored, and ICAI was directed to disclose only the standards of moderation used for mark revisions.
Issues considered
- Whether the instructions and solutions to questions given by ICAI to examiners and moderators are intellectual property of ICAI and exempt under s.8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
- Whether providing access to those instructions and solutions would infringe copyright, invoking s.9 of the RTI Act.
- Whether the instructions and solutions constitute information available to persons in a fiduciary relationship, thereby exempt under s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing ICAI to furnish details of mark revisions and moderation under query 13.
Legislation cited
- Chartered Accountants Act, 1948s. 3
- Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988s. Regulation 39(2), s. Regulation 42
- Constitution of Indias. Article 12
- Copyright Act, 1957s. 51, s. 52(1)(a)
- Right to Information Act, 2005s. 10, s. 11, s. 3, s. 4, s. 8(1)(d), s. 8(1)(e), s. 9
Subjects
Right to Information Actintellectual propertycopyrightfiduciary relationshipexamination confidentialityexemptionInstitute of Chartered Accountants of Indiamoderationtransparencypublic authority
Judgment
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 328
A THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF
INDIA
v.
SHAUNAK H.SATYA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011)
B SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND. A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005 - s.8(1)(d) - Examination
c of candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants -
Examination held by appellant-lnsf;tute of Chartered
Accountants of India (/CAI) - Whether the instructions and
solutions to questions (if any) given by /CAI to examiners and
moderators, are intellectual property of the /CAI, disclosure
D of which would harm the competitive position of third parties
and therefore exempted under s. 8(1 )(d) of the RT/ Act - Held:
The question papers, solutions to questions and instructions
are the intellectual properties of /CAI - However, what is
exempted from disclosure at one point of time may cease to
E be exempted at a later point of time, depending upon the
nature of exemption - The appellant examining body is not
liable to give to any citizen any information relating to
question papers. solutions/model answers and instructions
relating to a particular examination before the date of such
F examination - But the position will be different once the
examination is held - Disclosure of the question papers,
model answers and instructions in regard to any particular
examination, would not harm the competitive position of any
third party once the examination is held - In fact the question
papers are disclosed to everyone at the time of examination
G - The appellant voluntarily publishes the ·suggested
answers" in regard to the question papers in the form of a book
for sale every year, after the examination - Therefore s.8(1)(d)
of the RT/ Act does not bar or prohibit the disclosure of
H 328
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 329
1NDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
question papers. model answers (solutions to questions) and A
instructions if any given to the examiners and moderators ·
after the examination and after the evaluation of answerscripts
is completed. as at that stage they will not harm the
competitive position of any third party.
B
Right tb Information Act, 2005 - s.9 - Examination of
candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants -
Examination held by appellant-Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India (/CAI) - Whether providing access to t!Je
information sought (that is instructions and solutions to C
questions issued by /CAI to examiners and moderators) would
involve an infringement of the copyright and therefore the
request for intormation is liable to be rejected under s.9 of the
RT/ Act- Held: The word 'State' used in s.9 of RT/ Act refers
-to the Central or State Government, Parliament or Legislature D,
a
of State, or any local or other authorities as described under
Atticle 12 of the Constitution - The reason for using the word
.'State' and not 'public authority' in s.9 of RT/ Act is apparently
because the definition of 'public authority' in the ,A.ct is wider
than the definition of 'State' in Article 12, and includes even
non-government organizations financed directly or indirectly E
by funds provided by the appropriate government - An
application for information would be rejected under s. 9 of RT/
Act, only if information sought involves an infringement of
copyright subsisting in a person other than the .State - /CAI
being a statutory body created by the Chartered Accountants F
Act. 1948 is 'State' - The information sought is a material in
which /CAI claims a copyright - It is not the case of ICAI that
anyone else has a copyright in such material - In fact it has
specifically pleaded that even if the question papers,
solutions/model answers, or other instructions are prepared G
by any third patty for /CAI, the copyright therein is assigned
in favour of /CAI - Providing access to information in respect
of which /CAI holds a copyright, does not involve infringement
of a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State -
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R..
A Therefore /CAI is not entitled to claim protection against
disclosure urider s. 9 of the RT/ Act - There is yet another
r.eason why s. 9 of RT/ Act will be inapplicable - The words
'infringement of copyright' have a specific connotation - A
combined reading of ss. 51 and 52(1)(a) of Copyright Act
B shows that furnishing of information by an examining body,
in response to a query under the RT/ Act may not be termed.
as an infringement of copyright.
Right to Information Act, 2005 - s.8(1)(e) - Examination
of candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants -
C Examination held by appellant-Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India (/CAI) - Whether the instructions and
solutions to questions are information made available to
examiners and moderators in their fiduciary capacity and
therefore exempted under s. 8(1 )(e) of the RT/ Act - Held: The
D instructions and solutions to questions are given by the /CAI
to the examiners and moderators to be held in confidence -
The examiners and moderators are in the position of agents
and /CAI is in the position of principal in regard to such
information which /CAI gives to the examiners and
E moderators to achieve uniformity, consistency and exactness
of evaluation of the answer scripts - When anything is given
and taken in trust or in confidence, requiring or expecting
secrecy and confidentiality to be maintained in that behalf. it
is -held by the recipient in a fiduciary relationship - S. 8(1 )(e)
F uses the words "information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship - Significantly s. 8(1 )(e) does not use the
words "information available to a public authority in its fiduciary
relationship .. - The use of the words "person" shows that the
holder of the information in a fiduciary relationship need not
G only be a 'public authority' as the word 'person' is of much
wider import than the word 'public authority' - Therefore the
exemption under s.8(1)(e) is available not only in regard to
information that is held by a public authority (in this case the
examining body) in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any
H information that is given or made available by a public
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 331
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
authority to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary A
relationship - Consequently. the instructioris and solutions to
questions communicated by the examining body to the
examiners. headcexaminers and moderators. are information
available to such persons in their fiduciary relationship and
therefore exempted from disclosure under s.8(1 )(d) of RT/ Act. · s
Right to .fnformation Act. 2005:... s.4(1)(b) and (c) -
Information to which RT/ Act applies - Two categories - A)
Information which promotes transparency and accountability
in the working of every public authority. disclosure of which
helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated C
in clauses (b) and (c) of s.4(1) of RT/ Act; and B) other
·information held by public authorities not falling under
s.4(1)(b) and (c) of RT/ Act - Held: In r(fgard to information
falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a
duty to disseminate the information Widely suo moto to the D
public so as to make it easily accessible to the public - But
in regard to the second category, there is a need to proceed
with circumspection as it is necessary to find out whether they
are exempted from disclosure - In dealing with information
not falling under s.4(t)(b) and (c). the competent authorities E
under the RT/ Act will not read the exemptions in s. 8 in a
restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other
public interests are preserved and the RT/ Act attains a fine
balance between its goal of attaining transparency of
information and safeguarding the other public interests. F
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11
- Object of the RT/ Act - Held: The object of RT/ Act is to
harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring
transparency to bring in accountability aod containing G
corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that
the revelation of information. in actual practice, does not harm
or adversely affeet other public interests which include
efficient functioning of the governments, optimum u~e of
limited fiscal resources and. preservation of confidentiaNty of
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A sensitive information, on the other hand - While ss. 3 and 4
seek to achieve the first objective, ss. 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to
achieve the second objective.
Right to Information Act. 2005 - s. 8 - Categories of
information which are exempted from disclosure under s.8 -
8
Held. Among the ten categories of information which are
exempted from disclosure under s. 8 of RT/ Act, six categories
which are described in clauses (a), ·{b), (c), (f), (g) and (h) carry
absolute exemption - Information enumerated in clauses (d),
(e) and (j) on the other hand get only conditional exemption,
C that is the exemption is subject to the overriding power of the
competent authority under the RT/ Act in larger public interest,
to direct disclosure of such information. The information
referred to in clause (!) relates to an exemption for a specific
period, with an obligation to make the said information public
D after such period. The information relating to intellectual
property and the information available to persons in their
fiduciary relationship, referred tp in clauses (d) and (e) of s. 8(1)
do not enjoy absolute exemption. Though exempted, ·if the
competent authority under the Act is satisfied that larger public
E interest warrants disclosure of such information, such
information will have to be disclosed. The competent authority
will have to record reasons for holding that an exempted
information should be disclosed in larger public interest. In
this case the Chief Information Commissioner rightly held that
F the information sought under queries (3) and (5) were
exempted under s. 8(1 )(e) and that there was no larger public
interest requiring denial of the statutory exemption regarding
such information. The High Court fell into an error in holding
that the information sought under queries (3) and (5) was not
G exempted.
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Examination of
candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants -
Examination held by appellant-Institute of Chartered
H Accountants of India (/CAI) - Query of the first respondent
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCQUNTANTS OF 333
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
required the appellant to disclose information on: (i)numbcf A
of times /CAI had revised the marks of anicahdidate'
,- '
~ ·'. i '
1
or ~ily
class of candidates under Regulation 39(2) of the Ch;,utered
Accountants Regulations; (ii) criteria used for exercising 'such
discretion for revising t~e marks; (iii) quantum Qf such
revisions; (iv) authority who decides the exercise of discretion a
to make such revision; and (v) number of students (with
particulars of quantum of revision) affected by such revision
held in the last five examinations at all levels - Whether the
High Court was justified in directing the appellant to furnish
to the first respondent the five items of information sought (in c
the query) - Held: Regulation 39(2) of the Chartered ·
Accountants Regulations provides for what is known as
. 'moderation'. which is a necessary concomitant of evaluation
process of answer scripts where a large number of examiners
are engaged to evaluate a large number of answer scripts - .
0
Each examining body will have its own standards of
'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own experiences
and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by
it - /CAI shall have to disclose the standards of moderation
followed by it, if it has drawn up the same, in response to part
(ii) of first respondent's query- In its communication, /CAI had E ·
informed the first respon(Jent that under Regulation 39(2), its
Examining Committee had the authority to revise the mark~
based on the findings of the Head Examiners and any
incidental information in its knowledge - This answers part (iv)
of query as to the authority which decides the exercise of the F
discretion to make the _revision under Regulation 39(2) - As
the information soughti.mder parts (i), (iii) and (v) of the query
are not maintained and is not available in the form of data
with the appellant in its records, /CAI is not bound to furnish
the same - Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 - G ·
Regulation 39(2).
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Examination of
candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants -
Examination held by appellant-Institute of Chartered H.
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A Accountants of India (/CAI) - Held: On facts, it cannot be said
that first respondent had indulged in improper use of RT/ Act
- His application was intended to bring about transparency
and accountability in the functioning of /CAI - However, how
' was entitled to the information was a different issue.
far he
B
Right to Information Act, 2005 - New regime of disclosure
of maximum information - Duty of competent authorities
under the RT/ Act to maintain a proper balance - Held:
Examining bodies like Institute of Chartered Accountants of
C India (/CAI) should change their old mindsets and tune them
to the new regime - Accountability and prevention of
corruption is possible only through transparency - In its
wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain
categories of information from disclosure and certain
organizations from the applicability of the Act - As the
D examining bodies have not been exempted, and as the
examination processes of examining bodies have not been
exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear themselves
to comply with the provisions of the RT/ Act - Additional
workload is not a defence - If there are practical
E insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies
to bring them to the notice of the government for consideration
so that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon -
However, it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to
information intended to bring transparency, to improve
F accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under s.4(1)(b)
and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing
on accountability or reducing corruption - The competent
authorities under the RT/ Act will have to maintain a proper
balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for
G information does not reach unmanageable proportions
affecting other public interests, which include efficient
operation of public authorities and government, preservation
of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of
limited fiscal resources.
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 335
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
Words and Phrases - Term 'intellectual property' - A
Meaning of.
The appellant Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India ('ICAI') is a body corporate established under
section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. One of
8
the functions of the appellant council is to conduct the
examination of candidates for enrolment as Chartered
Accountants. The first respondent appeared in the
Chartered Accountants' final examination conducted by
ICAI. The results were declared. The first respondent who C
was not successful in the examination applied for
verification of marks. The appellant carried out the
verification in accordance with the provisions of the
Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 and found that
there was no discrepancy in evaluation of answerscripts.
The appellant informed the first respondent accordingly. D
Subsequently, the appellant submitted an application
seeking information under 13 heads, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act). The appellant gave
responses/ information in response to the 13 queries. Not
being satisfied with the same, the respondent filed an E
appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate
authority dismissed the appeal, concurring with the order
of the Chief Public Information Officer of the appellant.
The first respondent thereafter filed a second appeal
before the Central Information Commission ( 'CIC') in F
regard to queries (1) to (5) and (7) to (13). CIC rejected the
appeal in regard to queries 3, 5 and 13 (as also Query 2)
while directing the disclosure of information in regard to
the other questions.
G
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of information
sought under items 3, 5 and 13, the first respondent
approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The
High Court allowed the said petition and directed the
appellant to supply the information in regard to queries H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.
A 3, 5 and 13. The said order of the High Court is
challenged in the instant appeal.
The appellant submitted that the information sought
as per queries (3) and (5) - that is, instructions and model
answers, if any, issued to the examiners and moderators
8
by ICAI could not be disclosed as they were exempted
from disclosure under cl~uses (d) and (e) of sub-section
(1) of Section 8 of RTI Act and that the request for
information was also liable to be rejected under section
9 of the Act. They also contended that in regard to query
C No.(13), information available had been furnished, apart
from generally Invoking section 8(1 )(e) to claim
exemption ..
On the said contentions, the following questions
D arose for consideration:
(i) Whether the instruction~ and solutions to
questions (if any) given by ICAI ·to examiners and
moderators, are intellectual property of the ICAI,
disclosure of which would harm the competitiv~
E
position of third parties and therefore exempted
under section 8(1 )(d) of the RTI Act?
(ii) Whether providing access to the information
sought (that is instructions and solutions to
F questions issued by ICAI to examiners and
moderators) would involve an infringement of the
copyright and therefore the request for information
is liable to be rejected under section 9 of the RTI Act?
G (iii) Whether the instructions and solutions to
questions are information made available to
examiners and moderators in their fiduciary capacity
and therefore exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act?
H (iv) Whether the High Court was justified in directing
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 337
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
the appellant to furnish to the first respondent five A
items of information sought (in query No.13) relating
to Regulation 39(2) of Chartered Accountants
Regulations, 1988?
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 8
HELD: 1. The term 'intellectual property' refers to a
cate·gory of intangible rights protecting commercially
valuable products of human intellect comprising primarily
trade· mark, copyright and patent right, as also trade
secret rights, publicity rights, moral rights and rights C
against unfair competition. Question papers, instructions
regarding evaluation and solutions to questions (or
model answers) which are furnished to examiners and
moderato!"s in connection with evaluation of answer
scripts, are literary works which are products of human D
intellect and therefore subject to a copyright. The paper
setters and authors thereof (other than employees of
ICAI), who are the first owners thereof are required to
assign their copyright in regard to the question papers/
solutions in favour of ICAI. Standard communication is E
sent by ICAI in this behalf. In response to it, the paper
setters/authors give declarations of assignment,
assigning their copyrights In the question papers and
solutions prepared by them, In favour of ICAI. Insofar as .
instructions prepared by the employees of ICAI, the F
copytight vests i-n1CAI. Consequently, the question
papers, solutions to questions and instructions are the
intellectual properties of ICAI. [Para 1OJ [357-D-F; 358-C-
D)
1.2. Information can be sought under the RTI Act at : G
different stages or different points of time. What is
exempted from disclosure at one point of time may cease
to be exempted at a later point of time, depending upon
the nature of exemption. For example, any information
which is exempted from disclosure under section 8, is H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A liable to be disclosed if the application is made in regard
to the occurrence or event which took place or occurred
or happened twenty years prior to the date of the request,
vide section 8(3) of the RTI Act. In other words,
information which was exempted from disclosure, if an
e application is made within twenty years of the
occurrence, may not be exempted If the application is
made after twenty years. Similarly, if information relating
to the intellectual property, that is the question papers,
solutions/model answers and instructions, in regard to
c any particular examination conducted by the appellant
cannot be disclosed before the examination ·is held, as it
would harm the competitive position of innumerable third
parties who are taking the said examination. Therefore it
is obvious that the appellant examining body is not liable
to give to any citizen any information relating to question
0
papers, solutions/model answers and instructions
relating to a particular examination before the date of
such examination. But the position will be different once
the examination is held. Disclosure of the ques!ion
papers, model answers and instructions in regard to any
·E particular examination, would not harm the competitive
position of any third party once the examination is held.
In fact the question papers are disclosed to everyone at
the time of examination. The appellant voluntarily
publishes the "suggested answers" in regard to the
F question papers in the form of a book for sale every year,
after the examination. Therefore section 8(1)(d) of the RTI
Act does not bar or prohibit the disclosure of question
papers, model answers (solutions to questions) and
instructions if any given to the E:xaminers and
G moderators after the examination and after the evaluation
of answerscripts is completed, as at that stage they will
not harm the competitive position of any third party. It
cannot be said that if an information is exempt at any
given point of time, it continues to be exempt for all time
H to come. [Para 12] [359-A-F; 360-A]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 339
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 813 - referred A
to.
2.1. Section 9 of the RTI Act provides that a Central
or State Public Information Officer may reject a request
for information where providing access to such
9
information would involve an infringement of copyright
subsisting in a person other than the State. The word
'State' used i11 section 9 of RTI Act refers to the Central
or State Government, Parliament or Legislature of a State,
or any local or other authorities as described under
Article 12 of the Constitution. The reason for using the C
word 'State' and not 'public authority' in section 9 of RTI
Act is apparently because the definition of 'public
authority' in the Act is wider than the definition of 'State'
in Article 12, and includes even non-government
organizations financed directly or indirectly by funds D
provided by the appropriate government. An application
for information would be rejected under section 9 of RTI
Act, only if information sought involves an infringement
of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.
ICAI being a statutory body created by the Chartered E
Accountants Act, 1948 is 'State'. The information sought
Is a material in which iCAI claims a copyright. It is not the
case of ICAI that anyone else has a copyright in such
material. In fact it has specifically pleaded tha~ even if the
question papers, solutions/model answers, or other F
instructions are prepared by any third party for ICAI, the
copyright therein is assigned in favour of ICAI. Providing
access to information in respect of which ICAI holds a
copyright, does not involve infringement of a copyright
subsisting in a person other than the State. Therefore ICAI G
is not entitled to claim protection against disclosure
under section 9 of the RTI Act. [Para 1~_),(360-8-G]
2.2. There ·is yet another reasqn why section 9 of RTI
Act will be inapplicable. The words 'infringement of H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A cepyright' have a specific connotation. Section 51 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 provides when a copyright in a work
shall be deemed to be infringed. Section 52 of the Act
enumerates the acts which· are not infringement of a
copyright. A combined reading of sections 51 and
B 52(1 )(a) of Copyright Act shows that furnishing of
information by an examining body, in response to a
query under the RTI Act may not be termed as an
infringement of copyright. [Para 14) [360-H; 361-A-B]
3.1. The instructions and 'solutions to questions'
C issued to the examiners and moderators in connection
with evaluation of answer scripts is the Intellectual
property of ICAI. These are made available by ICAI to the
examiners and moderators to enable them to evaluate the
answer scripts correctly and effectively, In a proper
D manner, to achieve uniformity and consistency In
evaluation, as 1 a
large number of evaluators and
moderators are engaged by ICAI in connection with the
evaluation. Th.e instructions and solutions to questions
are given by the ICAI to the examiners and moderators
!; to be held in confidence. The examiners and moderators
are required to maintain absolute secrecy and cannot
disclose the answer scripts, the evaluation of answer
scripts, the instructions of ICAI and the solutions to
questions made available by ICAI, to anyone. The
F examiners and moderators are in the position of agents
and ICAI Is in the position of principal In regard to such
information which ICAI gives to the examiners and
moderators to achieve uniformity, consistency and
exactness of. evaluation of the answer scriots. When
G anything is given and taken in trust or in confidence,
requiring or expecting secrecy and confidentiality to be
maintained in that behalf, it Is held by the. recipient in a
fiduciary relationship.[Para 16) [362-8-E]
3.2. Section 8(1)(e) uses the words "Information
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 341
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. A
Significantly section 8(1 )(e) does not use the words
"information available to a public authority in its fiduciary
relationship". The use of the words "person" shows that
the holder of the information in a fiduciary relationship
need not only be a 'public authority' as .the word 'person' B
is of much wider import than the word 'public authority'.
-Therefore the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is available
not only in regard to information that is held by a public
authority (in this case the examining body) in a fiduciary
capacity, but also to any information that is given or made c
available by a public authority to anyone else for being
held in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, anything
given and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality
to be maintained will be information available to a person
in fiduciary relationship. As a consequence, it has to be
0
held that the instructions and solutions to questions
communicated by the examining body to the examiners,
head-examiners and moderators, are information
available to such persons in their fiduciary relationship
and therefore exempted from disclosure under section
8(1 )(d) of RTI Act. [Para 17] [362-F-H; 363-A-B] E
3.3. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into
two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes
transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing F
or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b)
and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information
held by public ·authorities not falling under section 4(1 )(b)
and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under
the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to G
disseminate the information widely suo moto to the
public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In
regard to information enumerated or required to be
enumerated under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act,
necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.} S.C R
A under the RTI Act, will have to act in a pro-active manner
so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight
against corruption goes on relentlessly. But in regard to
other information which do not fall under Section 4(1)(b)
and (c) of the Act, there is a need to proceed with
B circumspection as it is necessary to find out whether they
are exempted from disclosure. One of the objects of
democracy is to bring about transparency of information
to contain corruption and bring about accountability. But
achieving this object does not mean that other equally
C important public interestc; including efficient functioning
of the governments and public authorities, optimum use
of limited fiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality
of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or
sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to harmonize the
conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency
0
to bring in accountability and containing corruption on
the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the
revelation of information, in actual practice, does not
harm or adversely affect other public interests which
include efficient functioning of the governments,
E optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation
of confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other
hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first
objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the
second objective. Therefore when section 8 exempts
F certain information from being disclosed, it should not be
considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but
as an equally important provision protecting other public
interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of
democratic ideals. Therefore in dealing with information
G not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent
authorities under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions
in section 8 in a restrictive manner but in a practical
manner so that the other public interests are preserved
and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal
H of attaining transparency of information and
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 343
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
safeguarding the other public.interests. [Para 18] [363-C- A
H; 364-A-D]
3.4. Among the ten categories of information which
are exempted from disclosure under section 8 of RTI Act,
six categories which are described in clauses (a), (b), (c),
8
(f), (g) and (h) carry absolute exemption. Information
enumerated in clauses (d), (e) and U) on the other hand
get only conditional exemption, that is the exemption is
subject to the overriding power of the competent
authority under the RTI Act in larger public interest, to
direct disclosure of such information. The information C
referred to in clause (i) relates to an exemption for a
specific period, with an obligation to make the said
information public after such period. The information
relating to intellectual property and the information
available to persons in their fiduciary relationship, D
referred to in clauses (d) and (e) of section 8(1) do not
enjoy absolute exemption. Though exempted, if the
competent authority under the Act is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants disclosure of such information,
such information will have to be disclosed. The E
competent authority will have to record reasons for
holding that an exempted information should be
disclosed in larger public interest. [Para 19) [364-E-H;
365-A]
F
3.5. In this case the Chief Information Commissioner
rightly held that the information sought under queries (3)
and (5) were exempted under section 8(1 )(e) and that
there was no larger public interest requiring denial of the
statutory exemption regarding such information. The G
High Court fell into an error in holding that the information
sought under queries (3) and (5) was not exempted. [Para
20) [365-B-C]
Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors. 2011 (8) SCALE 645 - referred to. H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 4.1. Query (13) of the first respondent required the
appellant to disclose the following information: (i) The
number of times ICAI had revised the marks of any
candidate or any class of candidates under Regulation
39(2); (ii) the criteria used for exercising such discretion
B for revising the marks; (iii) the quantum of such revisions;
(iv) the authority who decides the exercise of discretion
to make such revision; and (v) the number of students
(with particulars of quantum of revision) affected by such
revision held in the last five examinations at all levels.
C [Para 21] [365-D-E]
4.2. Regulation 39(2) of the Chartered Accountants
Regulations, 1988 provides that the council may in its
discretion, revise the marks obtained by all candidates or
a section of candidates in a particular paper or papers or
D in the aggregate, in such manner as may be necessary
for maintaining its standards of pass percentage
provided in the Regulations. Regulation 39(2) thus
provides for what is known as 'moderation', which is a
necessary concomitant of evaluation process of answer
E scripts where a large number of examiners are engaged
to evaluate a large number of answer scripts. Each
examining body will have its own standards of
'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own
experiences and the nature and scope of the
F examinations conducted by it. ICAI shall have to disclose
the said standards of moderation followed by it, if it has
drawn up the same, In response to part (ii) of first
respondent's query (13). [Para 22] [365-F-H; 368-H; 369-
A]
G
4.3. In its communication dated 22.2.2008, ICAI
informed the first respondent that under Regulation 39(2),
its Examining Committee had the authority to revise the
marks based on the findings of the Head Examiners and
any incidental information in its knowledga. This answers
H part (Iv) of query (13) as to the authority which decides
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 345
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
the exercise of the discretion to make the revision under A
Regulation 39(2). As the information sought under parts
(I), (iii) and (~)of query (13) are not maintained and is not
available in the form of data with the appellant in its
records, ICAI is not bound to furnish the same. [Paras 23,
24] . B
Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission - 2007
(3) SCC 720: 2007 (1) SCR 235 - referred to.
5. It cannot be said that first respondent had
indulged in improper use of RTI Act His applicatioh is C
intended to bring about transparency and accountability
in the functioning of ICAI. How far hel is entitled to the
information is a different issue. Examining bodies like ICAI
should change their old mindsets and tune them to the
new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public D
.
authorities should realize that in an era of transparency,
previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no
longer a place. Accountability and prevention of
corruption is possible only' through transparency.
Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional E
work with reference to maintaining records and
furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI
Act providing access to information, after great debate
and deliberations by the Civil Society and the Parliament.
In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only F
certain categories of information from disclosure and
certain organizations from the applicability of the Act. As
the examining bodies have not been exempted, and as
the examination processes of examining bodies have not
been exempted, the examining bodies will have to gear G
themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical
insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining
bodies to bring them to the notice of the government for
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A consideration so that any changes to the Act can be
deliberated upon. [Para 25) [370-A-H; 371-A-E]
6. However, it is necessary to make a distinction in
regard to information intended to bring transparency, to
improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling
8
under section 4{1)(b) and {c) and other information which
may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing
corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act
will have to maintain a proper balance so that while
C achieving transparency, the demand for information does
not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other
public interests, which include efficient operation of
public authorities and government, pre'servation of
confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use
of limited fiscal resources. [Para 26) (371-F-H; 372-A]
D
7. In view of the above, the order of the High Court
is set aside and the order of the CIC is restored, subject
to one modification in regard to query (13): /CA/ to
disclose to the first respondent, the standard criteria, if any,
E relating to moderation, employed by it, for the purpose of
making revisions under Regulation 39(2). [Para 27] (372-B]
Case Law Reference:
2011 (8) SCALE 645 referred to Para 15
F
2007 {1) SCR 235 referred to Para 22
CIVIL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7571 of 2011.
G From the Judgment & Order dated 30.11.2010 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 378 of 2009.
K.K. Venugopal, Ramji Srinivasan, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj
Dayal, Rakesh Agarwal for the Appellant.
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 347
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA
Rohan Rajadyaksha, Ranjeeta Rohtagi for the A
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
8
2. The appellant Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
(for short 'ICAI') is a body corporate established under section
3 of the Chartered Accountants Act,· 1949_ One of the functions
of the appellant council is to conduct the examination of
candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants. The first c
respondent appeared in the Chartered Accountants' final
examination conducted by ICAI in November, 2007. The results
were declared in January 2008. The first respondent who was
not successful in the examination applied for verification of
marks. The appellant carried out the verification in accordance 0
with the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulations,
1988 and found that there was no discrepancy in evaluation of
answerscripts. The appellant informed the first respondent
accordingly.
3. On 18.1.2008 the appellant submitted an application E
seeking the following information under 13 heads, under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short) :
"1) Educational qualification of the examiners &
Moderators with subject wise classifications. (you may not F
give me the names of the examiners & moderators).
2) Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.
3) Instructions issued to the examiners. and moderators
oral as well as written if any. G
4) Procedure established for selection of examiners &
moderators.
5) Model answers if any given to the examiners &
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A moderators if any.
6) Remuneration paid to the examiners & moderators.
7) Number of students appearing for exams at all levels in
the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break
8 up)
8) Number of students that passed at the 1st attempt from
the above.
9) From the number of students that failed in the last 2
c years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up) from
the above, how many students opted for verification of
marks as per regulation 38.
10) Procedure adopted at the time of verification of marks
D as above.
11) Number of students whose marks were positively
changed out of those students that opted for verification
of marks.
E 12) Educational qualifications of the persons performiQg
the verification of marks under Regulation 38 &
remuneration paid to them.
13) Number of times that the council has revised the
F marks of any candidate, or any class of candidates,
in accordance with regulation 39(2) of the Chartered
Accountants Regulations, 1988, the criteria used for
such discretion, the quantum of such revision, the
quantum of such revision, the authority that decides
G such discretion, and the number of students along
with the quantum of revision effected by such
revision in the last 5 exams, held at all levels (i.e. PE1/
PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)."
(emphasis supplied:
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 349
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
4. The appellant by its reply dated 22.2.2008 gave the A
following responses/information in response to the 13 queries
"1. Professionals, academicians and officials with relevant
academic and practical experience and exposure in 8
relevant and related fields.
2&3. Evaluation of answer books is carried out in terms
of the guidance including instructions provided by Head
Examiners appointed for each subject(s). Subsequently, a
review thereof is undertaken for the purpose of C
moderators.
4. In terms of (1) above, a list cif examiners is maintained
under Regulation 42 of the Chartered Accountants
Regulations. 1988. Based on the performance of the o
examiners, moderators are appointed from amongst the
examiners.
5. Solutions are given in confidence of examiners for the
purpose of evaluation: Services of moderators are utilized
in our context for paper setting. E
6. Rs.50/- per answer book is paid to the examiner while
Rs.10,000/- is paid to the moderator for each paper.
7. The number of students who appeared in the last two F
years is as follow:
Month & Number of students Appeared
Year
PE-I PE-II PCC CPE* FINAL G
Nov.,2005 16228 47522 Not held Not held 28367
May,2006 32215 49505 Not held Not held 26254
Nov.,2006 16089 49220 Not held 27629 24704
May,2007 6194 56624 51 42910 23490
, H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S C.R
A *CPE is read as Common Proficiency Test (CPT).
8. Since such a data is not cr::rnpiled. it is regretted that
the number of students who passed Final Examination at
the 1st attempt cannot be made available.
B 9. The number of students who applied for the verification
of answer books is as follows:-
Month & Number of students who applied for
Year verification from among the failed candidates·
c PE-I PE-11 PCC CPE FINAL
Nov.,2005 598 4150 Not held Not held 4432
May.2006 1607 4581 Not held Not held 4070
Nov.,2006 576 4894 Not held 205 3352
D May.2007 204 5813 07 431 3310
*This figure may contain some pass candidates also.
10. Each request for verification is processed in
E accordance with Regulation 39(4) of the Chartered
Accountants Regufation, 1988 through well laid down
scientific and meticulous procedure and a comprehensive
checking is .done before arriving at any conclusion. The
process of verification starts after declaration of result and
each request is processed on first come first served basis.
F
The verification of the answer books. as requested. is done
by two independent persons separately and then.
reviewed by an Officer of the Institute and upon his
satisfaction. the letter informing the outcome of the
verification exercise is issued after the comprehensive
G check has been satisfactorily completed
11. The number of students who were declared passed
consequent to the verification of answer books is as given
below:-
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 351
!NOIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [RV RAVEENDRAN. J.]
A
Month & Number of students who applied for
Year verification from among the failed candidates*
PE-I PE-II PCC CPE FINAL
Nov.,2005 14 40 N.ot held Not held 37
May.2006 24 86 ' Not held Not held 30 B
Nov.,2006 07 61 Not held 02 35
May,2007 03 56 Nil Nil 27
• This figure may contain some pass candidates also. c
12. Independent persons such as retired Govt. teachers/
Officers are assigned the task of verification of answer
books work. A token honorarium of Rs.6/- per candidate
besides lump sum daily conveyance allowance is paid. -
-0
13. The Examination Committee in terms of
Regulation 39(2) has the authority to revise the marks
based on the findings of the Head Examiners and
incidental information in the knowledge of the
Examination Committee, in its best wisdom. Since E
the details sought are highly confidential in nature
and there is no larger public interest warrants
disclosure, the same is denied under Section 8(1 )(e)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
(emphasis supplied) F
5. Not being satisfied with the same, the respondent filed
an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority
dismissed the appeal, by order dated 10.4.2008, concurring
with the order of the Chief Public Information Officer of the G
appellant. The first respondent thereafter filed a second appeal
before the Central Information Commission (for short 'CIC') in
regard to queries (1) to (5) and (7) to (13). CIC by order dated
23.12.2008 rejected the appeal in regard to que~ies 3, 5 and
13 (as also Query 2) while directing the disclosure of H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A information in regard to the other questions. We extract below
the reasoning given by the CIC to refuse disclosure in regard
to queries 3,5 and 13.
"Re: Query No.3 .
.B Decision:
This request of the Appellant cannot be without seriously
and perhaps irretrievably compromising the entire
examination process. An instruction issued by a public
c authority - in this case. examination conducting authority
- to its examiners is strictly confidential. There is an implied
contract between the examiners and the examination
conducting public authority. It would be inappropriate to
disclose this information. This item of information too, like
D the previous one, attracts section 8(1 )(d) being the
intellectual property of the public authority havtng being
developed through careful empirical and intellectual study
and analysis over the years. I, therefore, hold that this item
of query attracts exemption under section 8( 1)( e) as well
as section 8(1 ){d) of the RTI Act.
E
Re: Query No.5.
Decision:
Respondents have explained that what they provide to the
F
examiners is "solutions· and not "model answers" as
assumed by the appellant. For the aid of the students and
examinees, "suggested answers· to the questions in an
exam are brought out and sold in the market.
G It would be wholly inappropriate to provide to the students
the solutions given to the questions only for the exclusive
use of th~ examiners and moderators. Given the
confidentiality of interaction between the public authority
holding the examinations and the examiners, the
H "solutions" qualifies to be items barred by section 8(1)(e)
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 353
NOIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
of the RTI Act. This item of information also attracts section A
8( 1)( d) being the exclusive intellectual property of the public
authority. Respondents have rightly advised the appellant
to secure the "suggested answers" to the questions from
the open market, where these are available for sale.
B
Re : Query No.13.
Decision:
I find no infirmity in the repl~ furnished to the appellant. It is
a categorical statement and must be accepted as such. C
Appellant seems to have certain presumptions and
assumptions about what these replies should be.
Respondents are not obliged to cater to that. It is therefore
held that there shall be no further disclosure of information
as regards this item of query " D
6. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of information sought
under items 3, 5 and 13, the first respondent approached the
. Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court
allowed the said petition by order dated 30.11.2010 and
directed the appellant to supply the information in regard to E
queries 3, 5 and 13. on the following reasoning :
"According to the Central Information Commission the
solutions which have been supplied by the Board to the
examiners are given in confidence and therefore, they are F
entitled to protection under Section 8(1 )(e) cf the RTI Act.
Section 8(1 )(e) does not protect confidential information
and the claim of intellectual property has not made by the
respondent No.2 anywhere. In the reply it is suggested that
the suggested answers are published and sold in open G
market by the Board. Therefore, there can be no
confidentiality about suggested answers. It is no where
explained what is the difference between the suggested
answers and the solutions. In our opinion. the orders of both
Authorities in this respect also suffer from non-application H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R
A of mind and therefore they are liable to be set aside. We
find that the right given under the Right to Information Act
has been dealt with by the Authorities under that Act in most
casual manner without properly applying their minds to the
material on record. In our opinion. therefore, information
sought against queries Nos.3,5 and 13 could not have
B
been denied by the Authorities to the petitioner. The
principal defence of the respondent No.2 is that the
information is confidential. Till the result of the examination
is declared, the information sought by the petitioner has
to be treated as confidential, but once the result is
c declared, in our opinion. that information cannot be treated
as confidential. We were not shown anything which would
even indicate that it is necessa·ry to keep the information
in relation to the examination which is over and the result
is also declared as confidential."
D
7. The said order of the High Court is challenged in this
appeal by special leave. The appellant submitted that it
conducts the following examinations: (i) the common proficiency
test; (ii) professional education examination-II (till May 2010)
E (iii) professional competence examination: (iv) integrated
professional competence examination; (v) final examination;
and (vi) post qualification course examinations. A person is
enrolled as a Chartered Accountant only after passing the
common proficiency test, professional educational examination-
F II/professional competence examination and final examination.
Tt1e number of candidates who applied for various examinations
conducted by !CAI were 2.03 lakhs in 2006~ 4.16 lakhs in 2007;
3.97 lakh candidates in 2008 and 4.20 lakhs candidates in
2009. !CAI conducts the examinations in about 343 centres
G spread over 147 cities throughout the country and abroad. The
appellant claims to follow the following elaborate system with
established procedures in connection with its examinations.
taking utmost care with regard to valuation of answer sheets
and preparation of results and also in carrying out verification
H in case a student applies for the same in accordance with the
fnllowing ReQulations
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 355
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
"Chartered Accountants with a standing of minimum of 5- A
7 years in the profession or teachers with a minimum
experience of 5-7 years in university education system are
empanelled as examiners of the Institute. The eligibility
criteria to be empanelled as examiner for the examinations
held in November, 2010 was that a chartered accountant s
with a minimum of 3 years' standing, if in practice. or with
a minimum of 10 yeas standing, if in service and University
lecturers with a minimum of 5 years' teaching experience
at graduate/post graduate level in the relevant subjects with
examiner ship experience of 5 years. The said criteria is c
continued to be followed. The bio-data ofsuch persons who
wish to be empanelled are scrutinized by the Director of
Studies of the Institute in the first instance. Thereafter,
Examination Committee considers each such application
and takes a decision thereon. The examiners. based on D
their performance and experience with the system of the
ICAI, are invited to take up other assignments of
preparation of question paper. suggested solution. marking
scheme, etc. and also appointed as Head Examiners to
supervise the evaluation carried out by the different E
examiners in a particular subject from time to time.
A question paper and its solution are finalized by different
experts in the concerned subject at 3 stages. In addition.
the solution is also vetted by Director of Studies of the
Institute after the examination is held and before the F
evaluation of the answer sheets are carried out by
examiners. All possible alternate solutions to a particular
question as intimated by different examiners in a subject
are also included in the solution. Each examiner in a
particular subject is issued detailed instructions on marking G
scheme by the Head Examiners and general guidelines for
evaluation issued by the ICAI. In addition. performance of
each examiner, to ascertain whether the said examiner has
complied with the instructions issued as also the general
guidelines of the Institute. is assessed by the Head H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Examiner at two stages before the declaration of result.
The said process has been evolved based on the
experience gained in the last 60 years of conducting
examinations and to ensure all possible uniformity in
evaluation of answer sheets carried out by numerous
B examiners in a particular subject and to provide justice to
the candidates.
The examination process/procedure/systems of the ICAI
are well in place and have been evolved over several
decades out of experience gained. The said process/
c procedure/systems have adequate checks to ensure fair
results and also ensure that due justice is done to each
candidate and no candidate ever suffers on any count."
8. The appellant contends that the information sought as
D per queries (3) and (5) - that is, instructions and model answers,
if any, issued to the examiners and moderators by ICAI cannot
be disclosed as they are exempted from disclosure under
clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of RTI Act.
It is submitted that the request for information is also liable to
E be rejected under section 9 of the Act. They also contended
that in regard to query No.(13). whatever information available
had been furnished, apart from generally invoking section
8(1)(e) to claim exemption.
9. On the said contentions, the following questions arise
F for our consideration:
(i) Whether the instructions and solutions to questions (if
any) given by ICAI to examiners and moderators, are
intellectual property of the ICAI. disclosure of which would
G harm the competitive position of third parties and therefore
exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act?
(ii) Whether providing access to the information sought
(that is instructions and solutions to questions issued by
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 357
INDIA v.
SHAUNAK. H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
ICAI to examiners:and moderators) would involve an A
infringement of. the copyright and therefore the request for
· information is liable to be rejected under section 9 of the
RTI Act?
(iii) Whether the instructions and solutions to questions are 8
information made avaiiable to examiners and moderators
in their'fiduciary capacity and therefore exempted under
section 8(.1 )(e) of the RTI Act?
(iv) Whether the High Court was justified in directing·the
appellant to furnish to the firsi respondent five items of C
information sought (in query No.13) relating to Regulation
39(2) of Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988? ·
Re: Question (i)
10. The term 'intellectual property' refers to a category of D ·
intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of
human intelle.ct comprising primarily trade mark, copyright and
patent right, as also trade secret rights. publicity rights, moral
rights and rights against unfair competition (vide Black's Law
Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 813). Question papers. E
instructions regarding evaluation and solutions to questions (or
model answers) which are furnished to examiners--and
moderators in connection with evaluation of answer scripts, are
literary works which .are products of huma!1. intellect and
therefore subject to a copyright. The paper.setters and authors · F
thereof (other than employees of ICAI), who are the first owners.
thereof. are required to assign their copyright in regard to the
question papers/solutions in favour of !CAL We extract below
the relevant standard communication.sent by ICALin that behalf:
G
"The Council is anxious. to prevent the unauthorized
circulation of Question Papers set for the Chartered
Accountants Examinations as well as the solutions thereto.
With that object in view, the Council proposes fo reserve
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.~
A all copy-rights in the question papers as well as solutions.
In order to enable the Council to retain the copy-rights, it
has been suggested that it would be advisable to obtain
a specific assignment of any copy-rights or rights of
publication that you may be deemed to possess in the
B questions set by you for the Chartered Accountants
Examinations and the solutions thereto in favour of the
Council. I have no doubt that you will appreciate that this
is merely a formality to obviate any misconception likely
. to arise later on."
C In response to it, the paper setters/authors give declarations
of assignment, assigning their copyrights in the question papers
and sofutions prepared by them, in favour of ICAI. Insofar as
instructions prepared by the employees of ICAI, the copyright
vests in ICAI. Consequently, the question papers, solutions to
D questions and instructions are the intellectual properties of ICAI.
The appellant contended that if the question papers, instructions
or solutions to questions/model answers are disclosed before
the examination is held, it would harm the competitive position
of all other candidates who participate in the examination and
E therefore the exemption under section 8(1 )(d) is squarely
attracted.
11. The first respondent does not dispute that the appellant
is entitled to claim a copyright in regard to the question papers,
F solutionsfmodel answers, instruction~ relating to evaluation and
therefore the said material constitute intellectual property of the
appellant. But he contends that the exemption under section
8(1 )(d) will not be available if the information is merely an
intellectual property. The exemption under section 8(1)(d) i~
G available only in regard to such intellectual property, the
disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of any
third party. It was submitted that the appellant has not been able
to demonstrate that the disclosure of the said intellectual
property (instructions and solutions/model answers) would harm
H the competitive position of any third party.
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 359
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
12. Information can be sought under the RTI Act at different A
stages or different points of time. What is exempted from
disclosure at one point of time may cease to be exempted at
a later point of time, depending upon the nature of exemption.
For example, any information which is exempted from
. disclosure under section 8, is liable to be disclosed if the B
application is made in regard to the occurrence or event which
took place or occurred or happened twenty years prior to the
date of the request, vide section 8(3) of the RTI Act In other
words, information which was exempted from disclosure. if an
application is made within twenty years of the occurrence, may. c
not be exempted if the application is made after twenty years.
Similarly, if information relating to the intellectual property, that
is the question papers, solutions/model answers and
instructions, in regard to any particular examination conducted
by the appellant cannot be disclosed before the examination
D
is held, as it would harm the competitive position of innumerable
third parties who are taking the said examination. Therefore it
is obvious that the appellant examining body is not liable to give
to any citizen any information relating to question papers,
solutions/model answers and instructions relating to a partic.ular
E
examination before the date of such examination. Bui the
position will be different once the examination is held.
Disclosure of the question papers, model answers and
instructions in regard to any particular examination, would not
harm the competitive position of any third party once the
examination is held. In fact the question papers are disclosed F
to everyone at the time of examination. The appellant voluntarily
publishes the "suggested answers" in regard to the question
papers in the form of a book for sale every year, after the
examination. Therefore section 8(1 )(d) of the RTI Act does not
bar or prohibit the disclosure of question papers, model G
answers (solutions to questions) and instructions if any given
to the examiners and moderators after the examination and
after the evaluation of answerscripts is completed, as at that
stage they will not harm the competitive position of any third
H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A party. We therefore reject the contention of the appellant that if ·
an information is exempt at any given point of time, it continues
to be exempt for all time to come. ·
Re : Question (ii)
B 13. Section 9 of the RTI Act provides that a Central or
State Public Information Officer may reject a request for
information where providing access to such information would
involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other
than the State. The word 'State' used in section 9 of RTI Act
C refers to the Central or State Government, Parliament or
Legislature of a State, or any local or other authorities as
described under Article 12 of the Constitution. The reason for
using the word 'State' and not 'public authority' in section 9 of
RTI Act is apparently because the definition of 'public authority·
D in the Act is wider than the definition of 'State' in Article 12,
and includes even non-government organizations financed
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
government. Be that as it may. An application for information
would be rejected under section 9 of RTI Act, only if information
E sought involves an infringement of copyright subsisting in a
person other than the State. ICAI being a statutory body
created by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1948 is 'State'. The
information sought is a material in which ICAI claims a.copyright.
It is not the case of ICAI that anyone else has a copyright in
F such material. In fact it has specifically pleaded that even if the
question papers, solutions/model answers, or other instructions
are prepared by any third party for ICAI, the copyright therein
is assigned in favour of ICAI. Providing access to information
in respect of which ICAI holds a copyright, does not involve
G infringement of a copyright subsisting in a person other than
the State. Therefore ICAI is not entitled to claim protection
against disclosure under section 9 of the RTI Act.
14. There is yet another reason why section 9 of RTI Act
will be inapplicable. The words 'infringement of copyright' have
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 361
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)
a specific connotation. Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 A
provides when a copyright in a work shall be deemed to be
infringed. Section 52 of the Act enumerates the acts which are
not infringement of a copyright. A combined reading of sections.
51 cind 52(1 )(a) of Copyright Act shows that furnishing of
information by an examining body, in response to a query under B
the RTI Act may not be tenned as an infringement of copyright.
Be that as it may.
Re : Question (iii) ,·
15. We will now consider the third contenti.on of ICAI that C
the information sought being an information available to a
person in his fiduciary relationship, is exempted under section ·
8( 1)( e) of the RTI Act. This Court in Central Board of Secondary
Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8)
SCALE 645] considered the meaning of the words information D
available to a person in his fiduciary capacity and observed
thus:
"But the words 'information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act E
in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to
persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to
a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be
expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the
fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the·. F
trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/
mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a
lawyer or a chartered accountant with refer:ence to a client,
a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with
reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another
partner, a director ofa company with reference to a share- G
holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver
with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with
reference to the confidential infonnation relating to the
employee, and an employee with reference to business .
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A dealings/transaction of the employer."
16. The instructions and 'solutions to questions' issued to
the examiners and moderators in connection with evaluation of
answer scripts, as noticed above, is the intellectual property of
ICAI. These are made available by ICAI to the examiners and
8
moderators to enable them to evaluate the answer scripts
correctly and effectively, in a proper manner, to achieve
uniformity and consistency in evaluation, as a large number of
evaluators and moderators are engaged by !CAI in connection
with the evaluation. The instructions and solutions to qu.estions
C are given by the !CAI to the examin.ers and moderators to be
held in confidence. The examiners and moderators are required
to maintain absolute secrecy and cannot disclose t~e answer
scripts. the evaluation of answer scripts, the instructions of ICAI
and the solutions to questions made available by !CAI, to
D anyone. The examiners and moderators are in the position of
agents and ICAI is in the position of principal in regard to such
information which !CAI gives to the examiners and moderators
to achieve uniformity, consistency and exactness of evaluation
of the answer scripts. When anything is given and taken in trust
E or in confidence, requiring or expecting secrecy and
confidentiality to be maintained in that behalf, it is held by the
recipient in a fiduciary relationship.
17. It should be noted that section 8(1)(e) uses the words
F "information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.
Significantly section 8(1 )(e) does not use the words
"information available to a public authority in its fiduciary
relationship". The use of the words "person" shows that the
holder of the information in a fiduciary relationship need not only
G be a 'public authority' as the word 'person' is of much wider
import than the word 'public authority'. Therefore the exemption
under section 8(1 )(e) is available not only in regard to
information that is held by a public authority (in this case the
examining body) in a fiduciary capacity, but also to any
H information that is given or made available by a public authority
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 363
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [RV RAVEENDRAN. J.)
to anyone else for being held in a fiduciary relationship. In other A
words, anything given and taken in confidence expecting
confidentiality to be maintained will be information available to
a person in fiduciary relationship. As a consequence, it has to
be held that the instructions and solutions to questions
communicated by the examining body to the examiners. head- B
examiners and moderators, are information available to such
persons in their fiduciary relationship and therefore exempted
from disclosure under section 8(1 )(d) of RTI Act.
18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two C
categories, namely, (i) information which promotes
transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or
discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of
section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information held by public
authorities not falling under section 4(1 )(b) and (c) of RTI Act. D
In regard to information falling under the first category, the public
authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely
suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to
the public. In regard to information enumerated or required to
be enumerated under section 4(1 )(b) and (c) of RTI Act, E
necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the
RTI Act, will have to act in a pro-active manner so as to ensure
accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes
on relentlessly. But in regard to other information which do not
fall under Section 4(1 )(b) and (c) of the Act, there is a need to F
proceed with circumspection as it is necessary to find out
whether they are exempted from disclosure. One of the objects
of democracy is to bring about transparency of information to
contain corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving
this object does not mean that other equally important public G
.. interests including efficient functioning of the governments and
public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, ·
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are
to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to
harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption
on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the
revelation of information, in actual practice. does not harm or
adversely affect other public interests which include efficient
functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
B resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information, on the other hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to
achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9. 10 and 11 seek to
achieve the second objective. Therefore when section 8
exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not
c be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as
an equally important provision protecting other public interests
essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic
ideals. Therefore in dealing with information not falling under
section 4(1 )(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI
Act will not read the exemptions in section 8 in a restrictive
0
manner but in a practical manner so that the other public
interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance
between its goal of attaining transparency of information and
safeguarding the other public interests.
E 19. Among the ten categories of information which are
exempted from disclosure under section 8 of RTI Act, six
categories which are described in clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g)
and (h) carry absolute exemption. Information enumerated in
clauses (d), (e) and 0) on the other hand get only conditional
F . exemption, that is the exemption is subject to the overriding
power of the competent authority under the RTI Act in larger
public interest, to direct disclosure of such information. The
information referred to in clause (i) relates to an exemption for
a specific period, with an obligation to make the said
G information public after such period. The information relating to
intellectual property and the information available to persons in
their fiduciary relationship, referred to in clauses (d) and (e) of
section 8(1) do not enjoy absolute exemption. Though
exempted, if the competent authority under the Act is satisfied
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 365
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such A
information. such information will have to be disclosed. It is
needless to say that the competent authority will have to record
reasons for holding that an exempted information should be
disclosed in larger public interest.
B
20. In this case the Chief Information Commissioner rightly
held that the information sought under queries (3) and (5) were
exempted under section 8(1 )(e) and that there was no larger
public interest requiring denial of the statutory exemption
·.regarding such information. The High Court fell into an error in C
holding that the information sought under queries (3) and (5)
was not exempted.
Re : Question (iv)
21. Query (13) of the first respondent required the D
appellant to disclose the following information: (i) The number
of times ICAI had revised the marks of any candidate or any
class of candidates under Regulation 39(2); (ii) the criteria used
for exercising such discretion for revising the marks; (iii) the ·
quantum of such revisions; (iv) the authority who decides the E
exercise of discretion to make such revision; and (v) the number
of students (with particulars of quantum of revision) affected by
such revision held in the last five examinations at all levels.
22. Regula_tion 39(2) ofthe Chartered Accountants
Regulatic>ns, 1988 provides that the council may in its F
. discretion, revise the marks obtained by all candidates or a
section of candidates in a particular paper or papers or in the
aggregate. in such manner as may be· necessary for
maintaining its standards of pass percentage provided in the
Regulations. Regulation 39(2) thus provides for what is kn9wn . G
as 'moderation', which is a necessary concomitant of
evaluation process of answer scripts where a large number of
examiners are engaged to evaluate a large number of answer
scripts. Thi!) Court explained the standard process of
moderaJion in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (AODL 1 S.C R
A Commission - 2007 (3) SCC 720 thus
"When a large number of candidates appear for an
examination. it is necessary to have uniformity and
consistency in valuation of the answer- scripts. Where the·
number of candidates taking the examination are limited
B
and only one examiner (preferably the paper-setter himself)
evaluates the answer-scripts. it is to be assumed that there
will be uniformity in the valuation But where a large number
of candidates take the examination. it will not be possible
to get all the answer-scripts evaluated by the same
c examiner. It. therefore. becomes necessary to distribute
the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation
with the paper-setter (or other senior person) acting as the
Head Examiner. When more than one examiner evaluate
the answer-scripts relating to a subject, the subjectivity of
D the respective examiner will creep into the marks awarded
by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation.
Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the
answer-scripts. Inevitably ther.;fore, even when
experienced examiners receive equal batches of answer
E scripts. there is difference in average marks and the range
of marks awarded. thereby affecting the merit of individual
candidates. This apart. there is 'Hawk- Dove' effect. Some
examiners are liberal in valuation and tend to award more
marks. Some examiners are strict and tend to give less
F marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in awarding
marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who
are strict. there may be variance in the degree of strictness
or liberality. This means that if the same answer-script is
given to different examiners. there is all likelihood of
G different marks being assigned. If a very well written
answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre
answer-script goes to a liberal examiner, the mediocre
answer-script may be awarded more marks than the
excellent answer-script. In other words. there is 'reduced
H
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 367
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
valuation' by a strict examiner and 'enhanced valuation' by A
a liberal examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability'
or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. Therefore, there is a need to evolve
a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the Examiners
so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner
variability' is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce B
examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation.
The classic method of moderation is as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one C
examiner is involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with
all the examiners is held soon after the examination. They
discuss thoroughly the question paper, the possible
answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects
of the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in D
the light of their discussions. The sample valuation of
scripts by each of them is reviewed by the Head Examiner
and variations in assigning marks are further discussed.
After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard
to the nonns of valuation to be adopted. On that basis, the E
examiners are required to complete the valuation of answer
scripts. But this by itself, does not bring about uniformity
of assessment inter se the examiners. In spite of the norms
agreed, many ex~miners tend to deviate from the
expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken F
by their propensity for strictness or liberality or eroticism
or carelessness during the course of valuation. Therefore,
. certain further corrective steps become necessary.
(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the
Head Examiner conducts a random sample survey of the G
corrected answer scripts to verify whether the norms
evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been
followed by the examiners .......... .
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C R.
A (iv) After ascertaining or assessing the standards adopted
by each examiner, the Head Examiner may confirm the
award of marks without any change if the examiner has·
followed the agreed norms, or suggest upward or
downward moderation, the quantum of moderation varying
B according to the degree of liberality or strictness in
marking. In regard to the top level answer books revalued
·by the Head Examiner, his award of marks is accepted
as final. As regards the other answer books below the top
level, to achieve maximum measure of uniformity inter se
the examiners, the awards are moderated as per the
recommendations made by the Head Examiner.
(v) If in the opinion of the Head Examiner there has been
erratic or careless marking by any examiner, for which it
is not feasible to have any standard moderation, the
D answer scripts valued by such examiner are revalued
either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who
is found to have followed the agreed norms.
(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the
E examiners are numerous, it may be difficult for one Head
Examiner to assess the work of all the Examiners. In such
a situation, one more level of Examiners is introduced. For
every ten or twenty examiners, there will be a Head
Examiner who checks the random samples as above. The
F work of the Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief
Examiner to ensure proper results.
The above procedure of 'moderation' would bring in
considerable uniformity and consistency. It should be noted
that absolute uniformity or consistency in valuation is
G impossible to achieve where there are several examiners
and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity."
Each examining body will have its own standards of
'moderation', drawn up with reference to its own experiences
H and the nature and scope of the examinations conducted by it.
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 369
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.J
ICAI shall have to disclose the said standards of moderation A
followed by it, if it has drawn up the same, in response to part
(ii) of first respondent's query (13).
23. In its communication dated 22.2.2008, ICAI infonned
the first respondent that under Regulation 39(2), its Exarrining
8
Committee had the authority to revise the marks based on the
findings of the Head Examiners and any incidental information
in its knowledge. This answers part (iv} of query (13) as to the
authority which decides the exercise of the discretion to make
the revision under Regulation 39(2).
c
24. In regard to parts (i}, (iii) and (v) of query (13), ICAI
submits that such data is not maintained. Reliance is placed
upon the following observations of this Court in Aditya
Bandopadhyay:
D
"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is
available and existing. This is clear from a combined
reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and
'right to information' under clauses (f) and 0) of section 2
of the Act. ff a public authority has any information in the E
form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics,
an applicant may access such information. subject to the
exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the
information sought is not a part of the record of a public
authority, and where such information is not required to be F
maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the
public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon
the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available
information and then furnish it to an applicant."
As the information sought under parts (i), (iii) and (v) of query G
(13) are not maintained and is not available in the form of data
with the appellant in its records, ICAI is not bound to furnish the
same.
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.
A General submissions of ICAI
25. The learned counsel of ICAI submitted that there are
several hundred examining bodies in the country. With the
aspirations of young citizens to secure seats in institutions of
higher learning or to qualify for certain professions or to secure
B jobs, more and more persons participate in more and more
examinations. It is quite common for an examining body to
conduct examinations for lakhs of candidates that too more than
once per year. Conducting examinations involving preparing the
question papers, conducting the examinations at various
C centres all over the country, getting the answer scripts evaluated
and declaring results, is an immense task for exam~ning bodies,
to be completed within fixed time schedules. If the examining
bodies are required to frequently furnish various kinds of
information as sought in this case to several applicants, it will
D add an enormous work load and their existing staff will not be
able to cope up with the additional work involved in furnishing
information under the RTI Act. It was submitted by ICAI that it
conducts several examinations every year where more than four
lakhs candidates participate; that out of them, about 15-16%
E are successful, which means that more than three and half
lakhs of candidates are unsuccessful; that if even one percent
at those unsuccessful candidates feel dissatisfied with the
results and seek all types of unrelated information, the working
of ICAI will come to a standstill. It was submitted that for every
F meaningful user of RTI Act, there are several abusers who will
attempt to disrupt the functioning of the examining bodies by
seeking huge quantity of information. ICAI submits that the
application by the first respondent is a classic case of improper
use of the Act, where a candidate who has failed in an
G examination and who does not even choose to take the
subsequent examination has been engaging ICAI in a
prolonged litigation by seeking a bundle of information none of
which is relevant to decide whether his answer script was
properly evaluated, nor have any bearing on accountability or
reducing corruption. ICAI submits that there should be an
H effective control and screening of applications for information
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF 371
INDIA v. SHAUNAK H.SATYA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
by the competent authorities under the Act. We do not agree A
that first respondent had indulged in improper use of RTI Act.
His application is intended to bring about transparency and
accountability in the functioning of ICAI. How far he is entitled
to the information is a different issue. Examining bodies like
ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new B
regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities
should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices
of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability
and prevention of corruption is possible only through
transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve c
additional work with reference to maintaining records and
furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act
providing access to information, after great debate. and
deliberations by the Civil Society and the Parliament. In its
wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain
0
categ9ries of information from disclosure and certain
organizations from the applicability of the Act. As the examining
bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination
processes of examining bodies have not been exempted, the
v examining bodies will have to gear themselves to comply with E
the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a
defence. If there are practical insurmountable difficulties. it is
open to the examining bodies to bring them to the notice of the
government for consideration so that any changes to the Act
can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may.
F
26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a
distinction in regard to information intended to bring
transparency, to improve accountability and to reduc~
corruption, falling under section 4(1 )(b) and (c) and other
information which may not have a bearing on accountability or G
reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI
Act will have to maintain a proper balance so thaf while
achieving transparency, the demand for information does not
reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public
interests. which include efficient operation of public authorities H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.
27. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part and
the order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the
CIC is restored, subject to one modification in regard to query
8
(13): /CA/ to disclose to the first respondent, the standard
criteria, if any, relating to moderation, employed by it, for the
purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2).
·.
B.B.B Appeal partly allowed.·
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Right to Information Act"Sign in to search