JUDGMENT Mr. R.I Singh, C.I.C.- Shri kamal kishore Arora had approached the PIO/Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar on 6.9.2011 seeking certified copies of the answer-sheets of Second Semester of M.A. (English)- Drama-l examination which was held by the Guru Nanak Dev University in May, 2011. The answer-sheets pertained to Mr. Gaurav Arora, who is the son of the present information- seeker who had appeared as an examinee in the above mentioned examination. The PIO/University sent a reply to Shri Kamal Kishore Arora vide No. 1 556/R dated 13.9.2011 n informing him that an examinee could see his answer-sheets within three weeks of declaration of the result on a deposit of a fee of Rs. 10000/-. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, Shri Arora filed a first appeal, which was also rejected. The decision was conveyed vide University’s letter No. l867/R dated 5.10.2011 reiterating that an examinee could inspect his answer-sheets within three weeks of the declaration of results on deposit of a fee of Rs. 10,000/- as per the University Policy. 2. The information-seeker has now approached the State Information Commission under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 challenging the decision of the First Appellate Authority and the PIO pleading that his request to obtain certified copies of the answer-sheets of his it son has been rejected wrongly and arbitrarily, re-lying on the University’s Rules and Regulations, whereas his request for information was under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The plea of the appellant is that information has been denied 11 to him, whereas PIO was required to furnish certified copies of the answer-sheets within 30 days of the receipt of the request dated 6.9.2011 and thus the mandatory provisions of the Act ibid have been violated. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in [2011(6) Law Herald (SC) 4428] : 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 914 (Central Board of Secondary Education v. Adityabadopdaya and others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an examinee has a right under the Act ibid to inspect his evaluated answer- books and seek certified copies thereof. The appellant, therefore, pleaded that penalty of Rs. 25,000/- be imposed on the PIO and he should be th directed to furnish certified copies. 3. The appellant, therefore, pleaded that penalty of Rs. 25,000/- be imposed on the PIO and he should be th directed to furnish certified copies. 3. The respondent on the other hand submitted that the information being sought by Shri Kamal Kishore Arora is personal information of a third party. It was averred that it may be that the third party is the son ofthe appellant, but the PIO is under no duty to disclose this information to the appellant under the law. It was pleaded that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon 1 by the appellant only entitles an examinee to access answer-sheets, Mr. Gaurav Arora could see his own answer-books or obtain certified copies-there of but no such right is conferred on a third person. Therefore, it was pleaded that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this score alone because the information-seeker neither is an examinee nor he is an authorized agent. He has no locus-standi. It was further argued that the information was not sought within the time prescribed by the University i.e. three weeks of the declaration of results nor was the fee of Rs.10,000/- as required under the University’s Rules and Regulations deposited by the examinee or his father. Respondent submitted that there was never any intention or willful denial or delay on the part of PIO who had clearly conveyed to the appellant , that the examinee should inspect the answer­sheets as per the provisions of the University’s Rules and Regulations. 4. I have heard the parties and gone through the record. It is made clear at the very outset that the present appellant had approached the University in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act ibid. Admittedly, he had deposited the requisite fee notified for seeking information under Section-6 of the Act ibid. Therefore, the stand of the University that an examinee can inspect answer­ sheets within three weeks on the payment of Rs. 10,000/- is erroneous and violates the mandatory provisions of the Act ibid. The appellant had approached the University for obtaining copies of the answer-sheets not under the Rules and Regulations notified by the University, but under the Act ibid. Therefore, the University Rules and Regulations relating to time limit of three weeks or Rs. 10,000/- as fee would be irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of the case. The appellant had approached the University for obtaining copies of the answer-sheets not under the Rules and Regulations notified by the University, but under the Act ibid. Therefore, the University Rules and Regulations relating to time limit of three weeks or Rs. 10,000/- as fee would be irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of the case. The fee was required to be deposited in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 override any other rules and regulations or a statute. Section 22 of the Act ibid clearly states that “the provisions of this Act shall have effect not with standing anything inconsistent with any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act ibid”. 5. The University authorities erred in asking for a fee of Rs.10,000/- or in prescribing a time limit of three weeks for seeking the information. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 no time limit has been prescribed and fee is to be charged in accordance with the Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2007 as notified by the State Government vide G.S.R.16/C.A.22/2005/S.27 /2007. 6. The next issue which calls for determination is whether the present appellant-Shri Kamal Kishore Arora could seek certified copies of answer- sheets of his son, who is a third party within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act ibid. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 914 is very clear and categorical that every examinee has a right to access his evaluated answer-sheets by either inspecting these or obtain certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under Section 8(1). In the present case, the respondent ­University has not sought any exemption under Section 8(1). Therefore we would not go into this Issue. 7. The plea of the respondent is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of lndia in the above cited case restricted the right to obtain the certified copies of answer-sheets to only individuals who had appeared in the exam. It was averred that such right is not conferred on a third party, even when such third party may be father of the examinee. It was averred that such right is not conferred on a third party, even when such third party may be father of the examinee. Perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Adityabandopadhaya shows that the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court did not go into the question of a right of a third party to access an answer-sheet, post declaration of result. In this case, Adityaban­dopadhaya-the respondent was himself an examinee and issue before the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court was (Para 8 of the judgment) whether an examinee’s right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer-books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof. The facts of the present case, however, are different from the facts of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in so far as in the case before us a third party is seeking certified copy of the answer-sheets of an examinee. 8. The question of third party obtaining copies of answer-sheets came up for consideration in CC­3033/2009 titled as Surinder Kumar v. PIO/Ex­cise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, in which answer-sheets of a competitive examination conducted to fill the post of Inspector Excise and Taxation by the Government of Punjab was involved. In this case, this Commission had concluded that 8. “The parties have not pressed, but since a passing reference was made by the respon­dent to Section 11 of the RTI Act, this issue too needs to be squarely addressed. Section 11 requires that an Information, “which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that party” would require, before any discloser is made, a due notice to such third party, inviting third party’s submission in writing or orally, as to whether the information should be disclosed or not and, “such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about discloser of information” A plain reading of this Section makes it clear that it does not impose a blanket ban on a PIO from disclosing third party information. The Section merely imposes an obligation on PIO to invite the views of third party and to take those into consideration, before taking any decision about discloser. The Section merely imposes an obligation on PIO to invite the views of third party and to take those into consideration, before taking any decision about discloser. Nevertheless, if this procedure were to be followed in each case, it would be an onerous and an endless task to give notices to all the canididates who sat in an examination, before allowing access to their evaluated answer sheets, after passing speaking orders. 8.1 We have considered the issue and are of the firm conclusion that an evaluated answer sheet, post declaration of the result, is not a third party information. Answer sheets and question papers, both, are supplied to a candidate in an examination hall by the examiners/authorities conducting the, examination. Examinees do not bring answer scripts from home. Nor can they take it out of the examination hall. A candidate merely answers questions on the body of the answer sheet supplied to him and thereafter returns it to invigilators. This cannot not be construed to mean that an answer sheet, “has been supplied by a third party” i.e. the candidate concerned. An answer sheet may, “relate to” an examinee in the sense that it is identified with candidates by assigning a roll number to each answer script. However, that by itself, would not make it a third party information either, because under Section 11, only that information can be withheld which is treated as ‘confidential’. The words, “which relates to or has been supplied by a third party” in Section 11 are subject to the following part of the clause, which reads, “and has been treated as confidential by that party” (emphasis provided). Till declaration of result of a competitive examination, confidentiality of the information has to be maintained-otherwise it would defeat the very purpose of competition (Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act). However, once the result has been declared, fairness of the com-petitive process itself makes it imperative to lift the veil of secrecy and confidentiality. Openness is the essence of fairness. The answer sheet, therefore, could never be classified as ‘confidential’, after the declaration of no result of an examination. At the cost of repetition, we would like to em-phasize that an answer sheet is not a private an property supplied by a third party. It is a public document in the custody of a public authority conducting an examination for a public service. At the cost of repetition, we would like to em-phasize that an answer sheet is not a private an property supplied by a third party. It is a public document in the custody of a public authority conducting an examination for a public service. The answer sheets or the no marks obtained by candidates are a sacro sanct public record impacting public life and am the fate and future of the competitors. Nothing in the administrative realm is personal or private-those who choose to enter public affairs, must learn to live by public scrutiny. 8.2 Furthermore, in the present context, the Proviso to Section 11 is attracted, as the public tin interest outweighs all other considerations. coi The Proviso to Section 11(1) is reproduced below: “Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by Law, discloser may be allowed if the public interest in discloser outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third party” An answer sheet is not a trade or commercial secret protected by a statute. What possible harm or injure could be caused to a candidate if evaluated answer sheet is put in public do­main? Candidates have only to gain from discloser as it would establish the fairness of the competitive process and reaffirm that merit has prevailed. Rather than any possible harm or injury, discloser would do only well. It would stir up the examiners, make the as­sessment fairer and free from lapses whimsical marking. 8.3 Therefore, given the facts and context of the present petition, we hold that the provisions and procedure laid down under Section 11 is not attracted to discloser of evaluated answer sheets of candidates of the competitive examination for public service, post declaration of result. Public interest outweighs any illusory injury or harm to any individual.” 9. The examinations conducted by a university are no different from examinations conducted for Publis Services, as was the case in the above quoted CC-3033/2009. Examinations conducted V. by the Statutory Universities determine the future of individual candidates. Disclosure of information, therefore, after declaration of result would of not be unwarranted evasion of the of the privacy of a third party, but any denial of intonation would certainly amount to unwarranted secrecye and therefore an infringement of equality of opportunity which is a Fundamental Right. Examinations conducted V. by the Statutory Universities determine the future of individual candidates. Disclosure of information, therefore, after declaration of result would of not be unwarranted evasion of the of the privacy of a third party, but any denial of intonation would certainly amount to unwarranted secrecye and therefore an infringement of equality of opportunity which is a Fundamental Right. In CC 1549/2010 decided by this Commission on a 10.5.2010, it was held that “An answer sheet is e not a private parchment supplied by a third party. It is a public paper in the custody of a public d authority i.e. PPSC. The answer sheets or the marks obtained by candidates are not their private possessions, but sacrosanct record impacting public life and also the fate and future of the competitors. Nothing in the administrative realm is personal or private those who choose to enter public affairs, must learn to live by public scrutiny”. Public interest thus far outweighs any misconceived sense of privacy of a third party. Pro­viso to Section 11(1) subjects the right of a third party to public interest and public interest out weights in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of a third party. 10. In the present case, it is the father seeking access to the answer-sheets f his own son. The plea taken by the University in its written reply is rather amusing. Relevant part of the part is reproduced:­ “That the appeal is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act as the information is per­sonal pertaining to the third party, may be son of the appellant, and respondents have a right not to disclose the information especially in these days when the parents have become more competitive than the children. A number of cases have been reported and are being reported in newspaper where children have committed suicide after their parents became aware about their performance in studies below the expectations of the parents.” The information has been denied under a misconceived notion that children may commit suicide, if parent learnt about their ward’s performance in examination. 11. It is true that a father is a third party under Section 11. But Section 11 lays down a clear procedure to be followed when third party information is involved. 11. It is true that a father is a third party under Section 11. But Section 11 lays down a clear procedure to be followed when third party information is involved. The PIO ought to have given a writ­ten notice to the third party within five days from the receipt of the request for information, inviting the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed and such submission of third party should have been examined before taking a deci­sion about the disclosure of the information. The PIO instead of giving such notice to the third party, himself usurped the power and concluded that disclosure of the answer sheets would not be in public interest because these days parents have (become more competitive than the children and that in number of cases, the children have committed suicide after their parents became aware about their performance in study below the parents expectation. 12. When the PIO had come to conclusion that the information is of a third party, he ought to have followed the procedure under in Section 11. It is possible that Shri Gaurav Arora himself may not have objected to furnishing of the information to Shri Kamal Kishore Arora. In fact, Shri Gaurav Arora has appeared on behalf of the present appellant on 20.12.2011 when the case was taken up Cr for hearing through video conference and he vehemently pleaded that appeal should be allowed and that certified copies of the answer-sheets en should be furnished to he appellant. 13. Therefore, I have no hesitation in directing an that the University should furnish a certified copy of the answer sheet of Shri Gaurav Aorea to the appellant free of cost, since a period 30 days as provided under the Act ibid is long over. It would not serve any purpose at this stage to remand the case to the PIO to follow the procedure of Section 11, when Shri Gaurav Arora has approached in person at 2nd appellate stage and pleaded that certificate copy of the answer-sheet be provided to the appellant. 14. However, I do not consider it a fit case to impose penalty on the PIO as has been sought by the : appellant. Under Section 20 of the Act ibid, penalty is to be imposed where PIO, without any rea­sonable cause, delays or declines the information. 14. However, I do not consider it a fit case to impose penalty on the PIO as has been sought by the : appellant. Under Section 20 of the Act ibid, penalty is to be imposed where PIO, without any rea­sonable cause, delays or declines the information. In the present case, the PIO erroneously and by a misinterpretation of the Right to information Act and university’s Rules and Regulations denied the information, but there was obviously no intentional or unreasonable delay. In fact the PIO, responded within a matter of days of the RTI request drawing attention to the University’s Rules and Regulation and intimating the procedure under which answer-sheets could be accessed. Reliance on the University Rules and Regulations was erroneous, but it was more due to misunderstanding of the legal position than an intentional act to deny the information. Therefore request for, imposition of penalty is not accepted. --------------