Central Information Commission order directing UPSC to provide details of marks(scaled as well as raw marks) to candidates.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067

Decision No. 354/IC(A)/2006

Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00793

(Right to Information Act – Section 19)


Name of the Appellant:        1. Shri Shiv Shambhu & ors.
              2. Shri Sanjeev Kumar & ors.

Name of the Public Authority:      Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, New Delhi.
       
Date of the Decision: 13.11.2006        

Background & Facts:

  In  Rajnish  Choudhry  Vs.  UPSC,  this  Commission  vide  decision  dated
1.9.2006 decided as under:

(1)  Total marks  scored  by  the  appellant  in written  papers  as well  as
interview should be disclosed.
(2)  The procedure and the technique that are followed to determine the
cut-off point  (or  level of score of marks)  to draw  the  line between
successful  candidates  and  others  should  be  disclosed  for  each
category of aspirants.  
(3)  Since the action relating to determination and application of cut-off
point being an extremely critical factor in life and career of a person
should  fall under public domain,  the  information sought should be
furnished since the matter is complete and over.
(4)  On  the  grievance  that  the  Selection Committee was  not  properly
composed,  there is no provision in the RTI Act for redress of such
  2
grievance.  However, in order to ensure that persons of high caliber
and  integrity  are  associated  with  the  process  of  selection,  the
composition  of  such  Boards/Committees  should  be  made  public
after the entire process of selection is over.
2.  UPSC  requested  for  recall  of  this  decision  and  to  decide  the  appeal  de
novo  by  the  Full  Commission  after  affording  reasonable  opportunity  of  being
heard  including  oral  hearing  to UPSC.    It was  also  submitted  on  behalf  of  the
UPSC that the process of recruitment has significant bearing on life and liberty of
citizens and  that  the  issue  involved  in  the present case  is of prime  importance
and of public nature.
3.  In pursuance of the request of the UPSC, the Commission decided to hear
the matter by its full Bench.
4.  In the meanwhile, some of the Civil Service aspirants who have appeared
for the Civil Services preliminary examination, 2006, including one Shiv Shambhu
and  many  other  applicants  applied  to  the  UPSC  seeking  the  following
information:
(a)  Separate cut-off marks  for General Studies and  for every optional
subject  for different categories such as General, OBC, SC/ST and
PH;
(b)  Details of marks obtained by each candidate;
(c)  Model answers for each series of every subject;
(d)  Reasons behind re-conducting of the examination on the subject of
Public Administration.
5.  Finding  delay  in  the  UPSC  giving  a  decision  on  furnishing  of  the
information sought, some of the petitioners, represented by Shri Shiv Shambhu &
ors., approached this Commission on 23.8.2006 stating, inter-alia, that the CPIO
of the UPSC was not releasing the requested information even though it was so
promised earlier. The petition of  the applicants was  treated as a complaint and
UPSC was asked to offer their comments in respect of the same vide letter dated
  3
25.8.2006.   CPIO of UPSC vide his  letter dated 8th September, 2006  informed
the  applicants  that  the  information  sought  by  them  forms  part  of  the  UPSC’s
crucial secrets and Intellectual Property u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.  UPSC
also informed that the information requested by the applicants is in the nature of
secret  documents  u/s  8(2)  of  the  RTI  Act  and  there  being  no  public  interest
requiring  its disclosure,  it cannot be disclosed as the disclosure would harm the
protected  interest.  UPSC also found that the disclosure of the information shall
irreparably undermine the integrity, strength and efficacy of the competitive public
examination  system  of  paramount  significance  conducted  by  the  UPSC.
However,  the  CPIO  of  the  UPSC  enclosed  a  self-explanatory  press-note  in
respect of the information sought conducting of the examination in the subject of
Public Administration on 19.5.2006.
6.  The applicants after receipt of the communication from CPIO submitted an
appeal  before  the  First  Appellate  Authority  of  the  UPSC  and  also  filed  a
complaint petition u/s 18(1) (b) of RTI Act before this Commission.  Some of the
candidates  on  the  same  matter  submitted  an  appeal  before  this  Commission
directly.
7.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  matters  both  in  the  case  of  Rajnish  Singh
Chaudhary  Vs.  UPSC  and  in  this  case  filed  by  Civil  Service  Aspirants  were
analogous  in nature and concerning  the same public authority,  the Commission
decided that both the cases be heard together by the Full Bench on 16.10.2006.
8.  After  hearing  all  the  parties,  the  Commission  decided  that  the  case  of
Rajnish Singh Chaudhary Vs. UPSC in respect whereof the UPSC has requested
for  rehearing  the  matter,  orders  would  be  passed  separately  after  the  UPSC
submits  written  arguments,  if  any,  as  regards  the  maintainability  of  review
petition.   Since  there were  simultaneous  appeals  and  complaints  on  the  same
subject,  the Commission  preferred  not  to  adjudicate  the matter  concerning  the
Civil Service Aspirants and directed  the First Appellate Authority  to  first dispose
of the appeal pending before it within one week and fixed 23.10.2006 as the next
  4
date  of  hearing.   However,  the  First Appellate Authority  of UPSC  rejected  the
appeal  and  upheld  the  decision  of  the  CPIO  vide  its  order  dated  20.10.2006
(hereinafter referred to as the impugned order).
9.  The Civil Services aspirants formally filed their Second Appeal against the
impugned  order  before  this  Commission  on  26.10.2006.    In  fact,  two  appeal
petitions have been filed, one by Shiv Shambhu & ors and the other by Sanjeev
Kumar  &  ors.    Since  they  deal  with  the  same  matter,  only  one  number  was
assigned to them and they are being dealt with jointly. In response to the appeal
petition,  UPSC  filed  their  replies  and  the matter  was  heard  by  Full  Bench  on
3.11.2006.  
UPSC was represented by:
1.  S/Shri SK Mishra, Sr. Advocate
2.  Biresh Kumar
3.  A.K. Vishan Dass
4.  V.P. Singh
5.  V. Mitra

  Appellants were present together with the following representatives:
1.  S/Shri Prashant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate
2.  Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate
3.  Sumit Kumar, Advocate
4.  Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
5.  Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
6.  Jaspreet, Advocate
7.  Karmveer, Advocate
10.  In their appeal petitions, the appellants have submitted as follows:
(i)  The impugned order is contradictory to the stand taken by the CPIO
as  the Appellate Authority  has  erroneously  found  that  there  is  no
cut-off  marks  fixed  by  the  respondents  whereas  the  CPIO  had
overtly withheld the information u/s 8(1) (d) and 8(2) of the RTI Act.
  5
(ii)  The  findings  of  the  appellate  authority  are  wholly  perverse,
misconceived  and  unfounded  as  the  respondent  cannot  shortlist
candidates without first fixing cut-off marks.
(iii)  The  contention  of  the  appellate  authority  that  the  disclosure  of
individual score of  the candidates along with  the keys of question
papers would have wider  implication  to  the extent of derailing  the
entire  structure  and  process  of  Civil  Services  Examination  is  not
correct and  in support of  their submissions, they have also quoted
the report of the Kothari Committee.
(iv)  UPSC has been publishing the marks of each of the candidates in
the main examination even before commencement of the interview
and as such,  there can be no  reasonable basis  for withholding of
marks in respect of the preliminary examination.  Other State Public
Service Commissions are also  furnishing similar  information  to  the
candidates.
(v)  The provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act deal with  information
concerning  commercial  confidence,  trade  secret  or  Intellectual
Property whereas the UPSC is not involved in commercial or trade
activities  and  as  such,  there  is  no  Intellectual  Property  involved
therein.  The information requested does not fall within the ambit of
Official Secrets Act and as such,  the provisions of section 8(2) of
the RTI Act are not applicable.
11.  UPSC  on  the  other  hand,  in  their  rejoinders  submitted  separately  in
respect of the two appeal petitions, has submitted as under:
(i)  There are no pre-prescribed cut-off marks;
(ii)  UPSC  with  a  view  to  avoiding  a  situation  where  most  of  the
candidates could come from a few disciplines having low or higher
scoring  in optional papers had  introduced and adopted the scaling
  6
methodology which has been developed after consulting renowned
experts  in  the  field and as such,  it constitutes  Intellectual Property
of the UPSC as envisaged u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act.
(iii)  Even  if  the  scaling  procedure  can  be  taken  as  “information
simpliciter”, still, it is protected from disclosure u/s 8(1) (d) as it may
adversely affect the competitive position of third parties.
(iv)  Statistical aspects of the scaling method relate to the confidentiality
and viability of the method and individual marks in each paper and
the  model  answer  key  if  revealed  would  ultimately  lead  to  the
revelation  of  the  formula  employed  which  would  adversely  affect
the competitive position of the genuinely meritorious candidates.
(v)  Even before the examination was held, UPSC made it clear that the
UPSC  will  not  disclose  either  the  individual  marks  or  the  cut-off
marks to the candidates.   In case the individual marks and cut-off
marks  are  to  be  disclosed  to  the  candidates,  this  will  be  such  a
colossal  work  for  the  Commission  that  it  will  be  impossible  to
conduct all the examinations as per the examination schedule.
12.  The  Full  Bench  of  the  Commission  heard  the  arguments  advanced  by
learned counsels appearing on behalf of UPSC and the appellants.  Opening the
arguments on behalf of  the UPSC, Sri Mishra submitted  that  there are no predetermined
 cutoff marks for the Preliminary Examination. The candidates receive
no  grades  for  the marks  that  they  obtain  in  this  examination.  The marks  are
finally  assigned  to  the  candidates  in  accordance with  the Scaling methodology
based  on  Kothari  Committee  Report.    The  UPSC  has  developed  this
methodology  along  with  application  software.  Being  a  part  of  the  intellectual
property of the UPSC this methodology is protected` under section 8(1)(d) of the
RTI Act, 2005 and the same cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.

  7
13.  Mr.  Mishra  also  contended  that  even  if  this  be  treated  as  information
simpliciter,  it  is  still  protected  under  Section  8(1)  (d)  as  besides  constituting
Intellectual  Property  of  UPSC,  it  also  constitutes  information  simipliciter  as  it
adversely  affects  competitiveness  of  the Commission.   The  information  sought
will  enable  coaching  centers  to  develop  short-cut  techniques, which will  defeat
the  purpose  of  the  UPSC  to  select  the  brightest  and  fittest  and  meritorious
candidates for the country’s topmost services.  Hence, in larger public interest it
is  not  possible  to  share  this  information.    Larger  public  interest  requires  that
public  services  are  manned  by  competent  persons.    It  is  the  concern  of  the
UPSC that such things are not tampered with by disclosing it to the public.

14.  Mr. Mishra during  the course of his arguments submitted  that  in case of
preliminary examination, statistical methods are used.   He explained  that under
the  formula,  which  he  himself  does  not  know,  UPSC  gives more  numbers  to
certain  papers.    In  response  to  a  query  from  Information Commissioners  Prof
Ansari  and Mrs.  Padma  Balasubramanian,  that  no  scientific  formula  could  be
taken as something that cannot be disclosed, Mr. Mishra submitted that after the
application of  the  formula, certain marks are ascribed to each candidate.  Once
the  candidates  arrive  at  the  same  marks,  rules  then  provide  for  short  listing
candidates numbering 12-13  times of  total vacancies. At  this stage  Information
Commissioner Sri AN Tiwari, asked that since the logic is being disclosed to us,
what  is  then  the  harm  in  disclosing  it  to  the  public?  The  learned  Counsel
submitted that even the Chairman of the UPSC is not privy to this.  The idea is to
make it as confidential as possible.

15.  In this context the learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Section 13
of the Copyright Act, where under copyright subsists throughout India in original
literary works.  He then referred to Sec.2 (4) of the Copyright Act, which gives an
inclusive  definition  of  “literary  work”,  and  accordingly  a  literary  work  includes
computer programs, cables and compilation  including computer data base.   He
  8
submitted  that  this  is  exactly  what  this  information  is  about  which  the
respondents/petitioners are asking UPSC to share.

16.  He  further submitted  that disclosure of data would harm competitiveness
of  those people who are genuinely meritorious candidates and who have much
larger and comprehensive knowledge of the subject in question and as such their
competitiveness will  be  affected  and  they will  come  under  disadvantage.    The
disclosure  will  enable  the  coaching  centres  to  lay  their  hands  on  short-cuts  ,
which will adversely affect those who are more meritorious.
17.  Submitting his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel
Shri Prashant Bhushan, Senior Advocate  submitted  his  dissatisfaction  that  the
system  was  admitted  to  have  been  kept  unpredictable.    He  emphasized  that
disclosure of scaling system  is absolutely essential  in  the public interest.  Since
the UPSC is not a commercial organization, it cannot claim Intellectual Property
or Copyright.  He also questioned as to how disclosure of scaling system would
harm  the competitive  interest of a  third party, particularly after the examinations
are over.  
18.  Mr.  Aman  Lekhi,  Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of  some  of  the
appellants,  submitted  that  principle  of maximum  disclosure  is  the  object  of  the
Right to Information Act and that the public authorities are under an obligation to
publish  the way  they  function.    It  is more so  in case of a public body providing
direct services to the public.  If the information is revealed, flaws can be pointed
out, which  can  be  acted  upon  to  perhaps  devise  a  better  formula,  as  there  is
always  scope  to  improve  upon.    He  alleged  that  UPSC  is making  a  virtue  of
nothing  else  but  of  unpredictability  of  methodology  of  examination.  In  this
context, he cited the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj
Narain vs State of U.P.  [1975 (3) SCR 360]:
“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of
the public must be  responsible  for  their conduct,  there can be but
  9
few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every
public act, everything,  that  is done  in a public way, by  their public
functionaries.  They  are  entitled  to  know  the  particulars  of  every
public transaction in all its bearing.”
19.  The  learned counsel also submitted  that section 8(1)(d) of  the RTI Act  is
relevant only when  the  information  relates  to commercial confidence or a  trade
secret  or  when  the  disclosure  would  harm  the  competitive  position  of  a  third
party.    Since  UPSC  is  not  a  commercial  organization,  it  cannot  claim  the
protection  under  the  said  clause.   On  the  other  hand,  the UPSC  is  obliged  to
disclose  such  information  in  public  interest.   He also  submitted  that  the UPSC
has denied the information to the appellants on the ground that the information is
something  that  is  “a  crucial  secret” but  such a  concept  is unknown  to Right  to
Information  Act.    At  this  stage,  Chief  Information  Commissioner  Wajahat
Habibullah reminded the learned counsel that this particular aspect has not been
pressed by the UPSC.  The learned counsel also submitted that there is nothing
of as much confidentiality as the UPSC is emphasizing. In this context, he cited
the example of the UP Public Service Commission which has already put on their
website both scaled marks and unscaled marks.  
Decision Notice
20.  The Right  to  Information Act  has  been  enacted with  a  view  to  securing
access  to  information under  the control of public authorities  in order  to promote
transparency  and  accountability  in  the working  of  every public authority.    In  its
Preamble, it has been clearly set out that an informed citizenry and transparency
of  information  is  vital  to  the  functioning  of  a  democracy  and  to  hold  the
Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governance.  Section 3
of the Act declares that all citizens shall have the right to information.  This right
is,  however,  subject  to  other  provisions  of  the  Act.    Thus,  it  is  very  clear  that
every  public  authority  must  strive  to  secure  access  to  the  information  to  the
citizens,  should  promote  transparency  and  disclose  rather  than  withhold
information.  The information that can be withheld could be only those which are
likely to conflict with:
  10
(i)  other    public    interest    including  efficient  operation  of  the
Governments; or
(ii)  optimum use of limited fiscal resources; or
(iii)  preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.

21.  The Act recognizes the paramountcy of the democratic ideal and seeks to
harmonize  the  above  conflicting  interests  by  incorporating  Sections  8  and  24
which explicitly provide as  to what  information can be withheld or which are  the
organizations which could remain outside the purview of the Act.
22.  UPSC  is not an organization  that has been kept out of  the  reach of RTI
and  as  such,  if  it  wants  to  withhold  some  information  from  the  reach  of  the
citizens,  it can do so only by  taking recourse  to provisions of  the Act and not in
any other manner.  Thus, the impugned order refusing disclosure of information
has to be in conformity with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
23.  In this context, it is also pertinent to refer to sub-section (5) of Section 19
of the Act which clearly lays down that the onus to prove that a denial of request
for information was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer and
not on the information seeker.
24.  In  the  instant  case,  the  appellants  have  asked  for  the  following
information:
(i)  Cut-off marks  for  each  of  the  optional  subjects  and  the General
Studies for different categories like General/OBS/SC/ST/PH;
(ii)  Details  of marks  obtained  by  the  concerned  appellant  in  the Civil
Services Preliminary Examination;
(iv)  Model answers for each series of every subject.
25.  Insofar as  the  reasons  for  re-holding of  the examination  in  the subject of
Public  Administration  is  concerned,  CPIO  has  already  furnished  a  self
11
explanatory note which was released to the Press.  As this point was not pressed
in the appeal petition, no decision in regard thereto is necessary.
26.  In  the  impugned order as well as  in  the oral arguments, UPSC has been
emphasizing  the peculiar nature of the examination and the process of an even
evaluation of performance of candidates.   UPSC has  further submitted  that  this
process  has  been  designed  by  the  UPSC  after  years  of  expertise  and
consultation with  the  subject  experts  and,  therefore,  this  is  a  subject matter of
Intellectual Property which  the UPSC  is not  in a position  to disclose.  The other
stand  that  the  UPSC  had  taken  is  that  disclosure  of  the  information  would
seriously affect  the  competitive position of  the 3rd parties,  i.e.,  those who have
been short-listed for the next stage of the examination or who would be preparing
for the future examinations.  The denial of information is, therefore, claimed to be
justified u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act.
27.  The submissions of the UPSC as aforesaid mainly relate to the nature of
examination,  the  process  of  evaluation  which  includes  the  process  of  evenly
balancing scores in respect of various optional subjects, and the question papers
and  the  answers  for  each  of  the  optional  subjects  and  the  General  Studies.
UPSC  has  failed  to  explain  as  to  how  disclosure  of  individual  marks  to  the
candidates  could be an  Intellectual Property of  the UPSC.   UPSC has already
conducted  the examination. The question papers designed  in  consultation with
subject experts and prepared by UPSC were circulated  to the candidates in the
Examination  Hall,  who  have  attempted  answers.    These  answers  have  been
evaluated and marks have been awarded.   During the course of hearing, it was
pointed out before us that for evenly balancing the performance of candidates in
various optional subjects, UPSC applies the scaling formula and accordingly, the
candidates are assigned  the marks after applying  the  scaling  formula.   But we
see  no  reason  as  to  how  the  assigned  marks  after  applying  the  formula,
whatever  it  might  be,  could  be  a  part  of  Intellectual  Property  of  the  UPSC.
Similarly,  cut-off  marks  in  respect  of  each  of  the  subject  are  also  fixed  in
accordance  with  the  said  formula.    Exemption  is  claimed  by UPSC  about  the
  12
“process” which has been developed as an original literary work, but the same is
not  true  in respect of marks assigned after the process of evaluation is applied.
So, whatever claim of  Intellectual Property  there  is  in  respect of  the  formula or
the process, the same cannot be applied to the product, i.e. the marks assigned
to each candidate and  the cut-off marks  fixed  in respect of each of the optional
subjects.  Similarly, we see no reason to deny the disclosure as regards the cutoff
 marks,  if  any,  fixed  for  the General  Studies  paper which  is  common  to  all
examinees and application of  the scaling  formula may not be at all  there  in  this
case.
28.  The appellate authority while passing the impugned order has stated that
the UPSC did not fix any subject-wise cut-off marks.  It has also been mentioned
in the impugned order that since there are no subject-wise pre-determined cut-off
marks, the information requested is non-existent.  On the other hand, CPIO while
denying  the  request  for  information  did  not  say  that  the  information  is  nonexistent
 or  that  there  is no  cut-off marks  for each of  the  subject.    If  that  is so,
UPSC  can  provide  marks  obtained  by  the  appellants  in  the  General  Studies
paper and  the marks assigned  to  them  in  their  respective optional papers after
applying the scaling formula.
29.  The  question  that  needs  to  be  determined  now  is  as  to  whether  the
question papers per se or  the standard answers or  the model answers can be
categorized  as  Intellectual  Property  of  the  UPSC.    During  the  course  of
arguments,  it  was  clear  that  the  Intellectual  Property  claimed  is  under  the
Copyright Act and what is prohibited under the Copyright Act is not disclosure but
reproduction and circulation thereof.
30.  In  this  context  it  is  pertinent  to  refer  to Section  13  of  the Copyright Act
which  clearly  lays  down  that  subject  to  the provisions of  the Act,  the  copyright
shall subsist  throughout  India  in all  literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works
which are original.  Section 2 (o) gives an inclusive definition of “literary work” so
as to include computer programs in addition to what is commonly understood as
  13
“literary work”.  Section 14 of the Copyright Act defines copyright in `literary work’
as an exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts: -

(i)  to re-produce the work in any material form including the storing of
it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii)  to issue copies of the work to the public not being copies already in
circulation;
(iii)  to perform the work in public, or communicate it to the public;
(iv)  to make  any  cinematograph  film  or  sound  recording  in  respect of
the work;
(v)  to make any translation of the work;
(vi)  to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii)  to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of the work, any of
the acts specified in relation to the work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);

In  case  of  Computer  program  it  also  includes  to  sell  or  to  give  for
commercial  rental  or  offer  for  sale  or  for  commercial  rental  any  copy  of  the
computer program.

31.  Section 51 of the Copyright Act elaborates as to when Copyright in a work
shall be deemed to have been infringed and it accordingly includes the following
acts:
(i)  When any person does any thing, the exclusive right to do which, is
by this Act conferred upon the owner of the Copyright;
(ii)  When  any  person  makes,  distributes  or  exhibits  or  imports  any
infringing copies of the work;
Thus, any reproduction, translation or adaptation or making copies or films are all
acts of infringement to the Copyright.  
32.  It is a fact that UPSC consults the subject experts, designs the questions
papers, and  takes model answers  in  respect of each of  such question papers.  
The  question  papers,  which  are  prepared  by  subject  experts  for  UPSC  in  a
  14
particular manner,  are  original  literary works  and  as  such  copyright  in  respect
thereto vests in the UPSC.  Since this literary work has been done by the subject
experts on behalf of  the UPSC,  it can  legitimately claim copyrights  thereof and
can thereby restrict its circulation or can exclude others from circulating it.  
33.  Since  copyrights  are  part  of  Intellectual Property  right, which  is  covered
under Section 8(1)  (d) of  the Right  to  Information Act,  this Commission cannot
order  its disclosure.   Under Section 8  (1) of  the RTI Act,  the UPSC,  therefore,
has no obligation  to disclose any such material unless  it  is satisfied  that  larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

34.  The Commission  has  carefully  considered  the  aspects  of  public  interest
involved  in  the matter.      It  has  also  considered  the  submissions made  by  the
UPSC and also by  the appellants.       There  is no doubt  that  the  issues  involve
paramount public  interest of selecting  the best available brains  for manning  the
Civil  Services.    Equally  important  is  the  need  to  have  a  transparent  system
known to each of the aspirants. Contrary to what the UPSC has claimed, this is
the only sure means of ensuring a  level playing  field. A public authority should
not be as possessive of its copyright as an ordinary owner who wants to keep his
property  to  his  chest.    Throwing  the  process  open  for  public  scrutiny  might
probably result in evolving a system better than what has hitherto been followed
by the UPSC.  In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 9
of the RTI Act that reads as under:

“Without prejudice  to  the provisions of section 8, a Central Public
Information  Officer  or  a  State  Public  Information  Officer,  as  the
case may  be, may  reject  a  request  for  information where  such  a
request  for  providing  access  would  involve  an  infringement  of
copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.”

         Thus, a CPIO is empowered to reject a request for information where such
a  request  for  providing  access  to  information would  involve  an  infringement  of
copyright  subsisting  in  a  person.    The  power  of  the CPIO  does  not  extend  to
rejecting such a request  if  the  infringement of copyright  involved  is belonging to
  15
the State.  Even Section 8(1) (d) also mandates the competent authority to order
disclosure of information, if it is satisfied that larger public interest so warrants.  

Orders
  In view of the reasons cited above, the Commission, therefore, directs as
under:
i)  The  UPSC  shall,  within  two  weeks  from  the  date  of  this  order,
disclose  the marks assigned  to each of  the applicants  for  the Civil
Services Preliminary Examination 2006  in General Studies and  in
Optional Papers; and
ii)  The UPSC, within two weeks from the date of this order, shall also
disclose  the  cut-off marks  fixed  in  respect of  the General Studies
paper and in respect of each of the Optional Papers and if no such
cut-off  marks  are  there,  it  shall  disclose  the  subject-wise  marks
assigned to short-listed candidates; and
iii)  The UPSC shall examine and consider under Section 8(1) (d) of the
RTI Act  the  disclosure  of  the  scaling  system  as  it  involves  larger
public interest in providing a level playing field for all aspirants and
shall  place  the matter  before  the Competent Authority within  one
month  from  the date of  this order. This will also cover the issue of
disclosure of model answers, which we  recommend should  in any
case be made public  from  time  to  time.    In doing so,  it shall duly
take into account the provisions of Section 9 of the RTI Act.

The appeal petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

The decision agreed to by the Full Bench is announced by the Chief Information
Commissioner on this the 13th day of November 2006.


  16
 (Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated  true  copy.  Additional  copies  of  orders  shall  be  supplied  against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.


(L.C. Singhi)
Addl. Registrar


Copy to:

1.  The  Secretary,  Union  Public  Service  Commission,  Dholpur  House,  Shahjehan
Road, New Delhi-110001.  

2.  Shri  Biresh  Kumar,  Additional  Secretary,  Appellate  Authority,  Union  Public
Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjehan Road, New Delhi.
3.  Shri M.P. Singh, JS, PIO, UPSC, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.

4.  Shri Shiv Shambhu, 401, F/2, C/o Nepal Singh, Room No.301, Budh Vihar, New
Delhi-67.

5.  Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, 83, 3rd Floor, Bhai Parmanand Colony, Delhi-110009.