A Right to Information or A Right to Denial?

In the world of public examinations and recruitment processes, the Right to Information Act, 2005 stands as a powerful tool for transparency and accountability.

Challenging the Mechanical Application of Precedents in RTI Cases

Yet, increasingly, Public Information Officers are resorting to a dangerous trend: the mechanical application of judicial precedents without examining their contextual relevance or factual applicability.

The Case at Hand: When Precedents Become Shields Rather Than Guidance

Consider a recent scenario where a candidate, having performed unexpectedly poorly in a descriptive examination for a Junior Court Assistant position, sought access to his evaluated answer sheet and marking scheme under the RTI Act.

The response from the concerned public authority was telling: a blanket denial citing three prominent judgments:

1. UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar (concerned with UPSC examinations)

2. CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (pertaining to academic board examinations)

3. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC (specific to UPSC’s processes)

What followed was a textbook example of how RTI responses are often reduced to copy-paste exercises rather than reasoned decisions based on the specific facts of each case.

The Problem: Context-Blind Application of Legal Precedents

The fundamental issue here isn’t whether public authorities can deny information—they certainly can when legitimate exemptions apply. The problem lies in how they deny it.

First, the scale test: The judgment in UPSC vs. Angesh Kumar primarily addresses the “disproportionate diversion of resources” in examinations involving lakhs of candidates.

Can this reasoning be mechanically applied to an examination with merely 2000 candidates? The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of administrative law, suggests otherwise.

Second, the misinterpretation trap: In citing CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, authorities often overlook that this judgment actually affirms the right of examinees to access evaluated answer sheets.

The Supreme Court specifically held that such documents constitute “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and can only be denied if a specific exemption under Sections 8(1) or 9 applies.

The burden is on the Public Information Officer to identify which exemption applies—a burden often conveniently ignored.

Third, the specificity gap: Each judicial precedent emerges from specific factual circumstances. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC, for instance, addresses the unique processes and scale of UPSC examinations.

Extending it as a blanket prohibition to all recruitment bodies, regardless of their scale or process, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of stare decisis.

The Legal Framework: Where RTI Officers Often Stumble

Section 19(5) of the RTI Act is clear: when denying information, the burden of proof lies with the Public Information Officer to justify the denial. This requires:

1. Specificity in exemption claims: Identifying the precise sub-section of Section 8(1) being invoked

2. Demonstration of harm: Explaining how disclosure would harm the protected interest

3. Proportionality assessment: Balancing the public interest in disclosure against the harm claimed

In practice, however, responses often contain:

• Generic references to case laws without explaining their applicability

• Failure to specify which exemption clause applies

• No assessment of whether disclosure would actually cause harm

• No consideration of whether the information can be provided in a modified form (with redactions, for instance)

The Role of Appellate Authorities: Rubber-Stamping or Independent Scrutiny?

The problem often compounds at the first appellate level. The First Appellate Authority, under Section 19(1), has a statutory duty to conduct independent assessment. Yet, in many cases, appellate orders simply endorse the CPIO’s reasoning without:

• Examining the applicability of cited precedents

• Verifying whether exemptions under Sections 8/9 are actually attracted

• Considering the distinguishing features of the case

• Applying the proportionality principle

This creates a troubling pattern where denials cascade through the system without meaningful scrutiny.

Strategies for Effective Challenge

For legal practitioners handling such cases, several strategies can be effective:

Contextual Distinction:

Always highlight how the facts of your client’s case differ from those in cited precedents—particularly regarding scale, process complexity, and timing (whether the process is complete).

Burden-Shifting Emphasis:

Remind authorities that under Section 19(5), the burden is on them to justify denial. A generic reference to a judgment without explaining its applicability fails this test.

Exemption-Specific Challenge:

Force the authority to specify which exemption under Section 8(1) applies. If they cannot, the denial is unsustainable.

Modified Disclosure Argument:

Propose redacted disclosure or alternative forms of information that address potential concerns while serving the information seeker’s legitimate needs.

Timing Consideration:

Highlight when the information is sought—after process completion often eliminates many potential justifications for denial.

The Bigger Picture: Transparency as a Principle, Not a Burden

Public examinations represent gateways to public service. Their integrity is paramount, but so is their transparency.

When candidates receive unexpected results, their right to understand their assessment isn’t just about personal closure—it’s about trust in the system.

The RTI Act was envisioned as a sunshine law, bringing transparency to government functioning. Its misuse through mechanical denials based on misapplied precedents undermines this very purpose.

As legal practitioners, our role extends beyond individual cases—we must champion the principled application of transparency laws, ensuring that precedents serve as guides rather than shields for opacity.

The next time you encounter a denial based on mechanical precedent citation, remember: the law requires reasoning, not recitation. Challenge not just the denial, but the reasoning—or lack thereof—behind it.

Legal Light Consulting specializes in strategic RTI litigation and transparency law advocacy.

Our approach combines deep legal analysis with practical strategies to ensure that the right to information remains a meaningful tool for accountability and transparency