Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court

"Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8," Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling clarifying the boundaries of privacy under the Right to Information Act, the Allahabad High Court on February 26, 2026 held that marks obtained by candidates in a public competitive examination cannot be treated as private information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act — but drew a firm line by holding that no candidate has a vested right to obtain photocopies of another candidate's answer sheet.

A Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi partly allowed a writ petition filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, quashing orders of the Central Information Commission to the extent they directed supply of photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates to the RTI applicant.

Background of the Case

One Santosh Kumar, an Office Superintendent-II who had appeared in a written test conducted by the Railways for the post of Legal Assistant, filed an RTI application seeking marks obtained by himself and two other candidates — Manish Kumar Singh and Gorakh Sharma — along with photostat copies of all three answer sheets. The Public Information Officer supplied a copy of the question paper but refused photocopies of the answer sheets, permitting the applicant only to peruse the answer sheets on any working day. Marks were also not disclosed at that stage. On appeal, the Central Information Commission directed supply of photocopies of all answer sheets. A review petition by the Railways was dismissed, the CIC holding that Railways conducts examinations to fill posts — a public activity — and answer sheets were therefore disclosable. Aggrieved, the Union of India approached the High Court.

Legal Issues

The case raised two distinct questions: first, whether marks obtained by candidates in a competitive public examination constitute "personal information" exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; and second, whether a candidate has a right to obtain photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets, or whether permitting perusal suffices.

Court's Observations and Judgment

"We Fail To Understand How Marks Obtained In A Public Exam Is Private Information"

The Court examined Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of individual privacy. Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, the Court acknowledged that personal information unrelated to public activity — such as service records or income tax returns — is generally protected. However, the Court held that a competitive examination conducted by a government authority to fill public posts carries an intrinsic element of public activity, and marks obtained in such an examination are not private information in any meaningful sense.

"Content of examination for a post may be for a classified section, but it has an element of public activity where disclosure of marks obtained by candidates shall serve a larger public interest."

The Court noted that marks ultimately become open to all when the merit list is prepared, and that a co-candidate seeking another candidate's marks — having himself participated in the same examination — cannot be said to be invading anyone's privacy. The Court distinguished this from a situation where an outsider seeks such information, noting that in such a case the department may validly raise a plea of confidentiality.

Applying the Delhi High Court's definition in Dr. Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta that "public activity" denotes activity done for the public or available for participation by the public, the Court held that a Railway recruitment examination squarely qualifies as a public activity, and information relating to marks obtained therein is disclosable under the RTI Act without attracting the third-party notice requirement under Section 11 for a co-candidate seeking such information.

"There Is No Vested Right To Obtain Photocopies of Another Candidate's Answer Sheet — Perusal Is Sufficient"

Having held that marks are disclosable, the Court drew a sharp distinction between disclosure of marks and supply of photocopies of answer sheets. Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Court noted that an evaluated answer sheet is a combination of two types of information — the answers written by the examinee and the marks awarded by the examiner. A candidate's right under RTI extends to understanding the evaluation of his own answers; it does not extend to compelling an authority to physically reproduce and hand over another candidate's answer sheet.

The Court observed that answer sheets contain the signatures and markings of examiners, and compelling disclosure of photocopies would expose information that the department is entitled to protect. Permitting a candidate to peruse another candidate's answer sheet on any working day, the Court held, is fully sufficient to satisfy the mandate of the RTI Act. If a candidate, upon such perusal, discovers irregularities in the checking of another candidate's answer sheet, he is not without remedy — he may raise the issue in appropriate legal proceedings, where the court has independent power to summon the answer sheets.

"In no case can we compel an authority to supply photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates. If a candidate finds irregularity upon perusal, he can always question it in appropriate legal proceedings where the court is always vested with the power to summon the answer sheets."

The Court further held that when sufficient information has been furnished in response to an RTI application, the application stands satisfied. It is not always necessary to provide copies of official records or documents which the department considers unnecessary for the purpose for which information was sought. In the present case, the Railways had already disclosed the marks of the three candidates vide letter dated May 28, 2009 — and the Court held that this disclosure constituted sufficient information, rendering any further compulsion to supply photocopies unwarranted.

Accordingly, the CIC orders dated May 13, 2009 and June 4, 2009 were quashed to the extent they directed supply of photocopies of answer sheets, while the direction to disclose marks was upheld as legally correct.

The Allahabad High Court's ruling establishes a clear and workable framework for RTI applications in the context of competitive examinations: marks of candidates are public information disclosable to co-candidates; photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets are not compellable as of right; and an applicant's remedy upon discovering irregularities is through court proceedings rather than an administrative RTI demand. The ruling balances the RTI Act's objective of transparency with the practical considerations of protecting examination administration.

Date of Decision: February 26, 2026