Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Through Staff Selection ... vs Shri. Shinde Shashank Vittal on 5 December, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:53444
32-wp10335-2015 final .doc
MPB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10335 OF 2015
Union of India, Thr. Staff Section
commission (WR) and Anr. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Shri. Shinde Shashank Vittal ... Respondent
G. R. Sharma along with Mr. D. P. Singh and Dhanesh
Sanjay Sharma for the petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 5, 2025
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners question the order dated 5 March 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The Commission directed the petitioners to furnish copies of the relevant record. This included the file noting on the basis of which the Competent Authority formed its opinion that the candidate bearing the roll number referred to in the order had indulged in malpractice in the examination.
3. The circumstances leading to the present proceedings are simple. The respondent appeared for the Combined Graduate Level Examination. During the post examination scrutiny undertaken by the Staff Selection Commission, the authorities noticed material indicating malpractice on the part of the respondent. The 1 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 ::: 32-wp10335-2015 final .doc Commission, therefore, debarred him from appearing in future examinations.
4. Before passing the debarment order, the petitioners issued a show cause notice to the respondent and similarly placed candidates. The notice stated that there existed prima facie material suggesting that the respondent had resorted to malpractice in the examination. The respondent was called upon to explain why action should not be taken.
5. The respondent challenged the debarment before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By its order dated 27 February 2013, the Tribunal directed the Staff Selection Commission to supply the respondent with the relevant file concerning his disqualification and the order of debarment.
6. After the Tribunal's order, the respondent invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He sought three categories of information. First, a detailed statement of reasons that led to issuance of the show cause notice. Second, the definition of malpractice as adopted by the Commission. Third, the specific grounds on which the Commission believed that the candidates, including the respondent, had indulged in malpractice.
7. The Appellate Authority under the Act declined to furnish the information sought by the respondent. This led the respondent to file a second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Information Commission. The Central Information Commission, by the impugned order, directed the petitioners to disclose the relevant record, including 2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 ::: 32-wp10335-2015 final .doc the file noting forming the basis of the Competent Authority's conclusion that the respondent had committed malpractice in the examination.
8. The respondent has been duly served with notice of this writ petition. Despite service, none appears on his behalf.
9. I have considered the record and the rival submissions. The issue that arises is whether the Central Information Commission was justified in directing disclosure of internal file noting and material forming the basis of the decision to debar the respondent from future examinations.
10. The Right to Information Act places a clear duty on public authorities to disclose information that falls within the definition contained in Section 2(f). The definition is wide. It includes all material in any form, including records, documents, memos, file noting, reports and data. This shows that the legislature intended a broad and liberal reach.
11. However, the same Act contains specific exemptions under Section 8. These exemptions protect public interest in the fair conduct of investigations and law enforcement. The petitioners rely on clauses (g) and (h) of Section 8(1). Clause (g) protects information whose disclosure may endanger the life or physical safety of any person or may reveal the identity of a source who has assisted in confidence. Clause (h) protects information whose disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution of offenders.
12. The act of debarment by the Staff Selection Commission stems from detection of malpractice in a competitive examination.
3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 :::32-wp10335-2015 final .doc Examination malpractice strikes at the purity of the selection process. It affects public employment and public resources. The authority must gather and analyse data, adopt screening techniques and rely on inputs received from examiners and those engaged in evaluation. Disclosure of such internal assessments can jeopardise the means adopted by the authority to detect irregularities. It can also expose the methods used to identify unfair practices. In such matters, the authority must have freedom to record frank opinions on the file.
13. The respondent sought not only the grounds on which action was proposed but also internal definitions, parameters and file noting. This goes beyond the respondent's right to know the reasons for the action taken against him. The Tribunal had directed disclosure of the material relevant to the respondent's disqualification. That direction stands complied with. The question before this Court concerns disclosure of internal note sheets and analytical methods which form part of the mechanism for detecting malpractice.
14. Having regard to the nature of such material, I find merit in the contention of the petitioners that disclosure of internal note sheets may seriously compromise future investigations into examination malpractice. If the means adopted for detection are revealed, candidates who intend to resort to malpractice will be equipped to defeat the system. Such an outcome will impede future inquiries. It would weaken the administration of fair examinations. Section 8(1)(h) therefore applies.
4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 :::32-wp10335-2015 final .doc
15. I am also satisfied that disclosure of sources or indicators used for identifying malpractice can expose persons who provide confidential assistance to the Commission. This risk attracts Section 8(1)(g). The object of the Act is transparency. It does not intend to weaken essential functions of public authorities.
16. The Commission did not examine the application of the statutory exemptions in the proper manner. It proceeded on the footing that file noting must be disclosed as a matter of course. The law does not adopt such a rigid view. The obligation to disclose is subject to statutory limits. When the exemption applies, the authority must withhold the information.
17. The Supreme Court in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar, (2018) 4 SCC 530 has held that the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) is wide. Even then, the Court has drawn a clear line. Material that forms part of internal decision making, including file noting containing opinions and assessments of officers, is not to be directed for disclosure when such disclosure defeats the purpose of an inquiry or exposes sensitive internal processes. The judgment emphasizes that while transparency is the rule, the Act is not intended to weaken the functioning of public authorities by compelling disclosure of material that would affect integrity of investigations or the process of selection. The material cited in the uploaded judgment reiterates these principles and protects the confidentiality of internal evaluation sheets, examiners' opinions and methods used for identifying irregularities.
18. The Supreme Court has also held that the Act does not 5 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 ::: 32-wp10335-2015 final .doc extend to compelling an authority to disclose the reasoning recorded by officers in the course of decision making when such disclosure interferes with sensitive functions of the authority. The Court took the view that internal deliberations form part of the privilege necessary for efficient administration. The protection available under Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) has been recognized as essential when information sought concerns law enforcement functions or detection of malpractice.
19. Applying these principles to the present case, the file noting, analysis sheets and internal data relied upon by the Staff Selection Commission stand on the same footing. These materials contain confidential indicators and detection methods. Disclosure will weaken the examination system, diminish the ability of the Commission to identify malpractice and compromise integrity of future evaluations. The exemptions in Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h) therefore operate with full force. The reasoning of the Supreme Court guides this Court to uphold the statutory protection.
20. The judgment lay down that the right to information cannot become a tool to obtain internal deliberations that form part of the core functioning of an examining body. They also make it clear that the candidate has a right to know the grounds for action taken against him, but he cannot insist on disclosure of confidential analytical processes or the internal mechanism adopted to detect irregularities. The petitioners have already disclosed the material relevant to the issuance of the show cause notice. The respondent seeks information that falls outside the permissible zone. The uploaded judgment supports this conclusion.
6 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 :::32-wp10335-2015 final .doc
21. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court thus reinforce the view that the Commission erred in directing disclosure without examining whether the exemptions applied. The statutory protection must prevail.
22. On these facts, the petitioners have shown that disclosure of file noting and analytical material will impede future detection of malpractice. The information sought therefore falls squarely within the exemptions provided under Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)
(h) of the Act.
23. The impugned order cannot stand. It suffers from failure to apply the statutory safeguards.
24. Hence I pass following order
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The order dated 5 March 2013 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi is quashed and set aside.
(c) It is held that the information directed to be disclosed by the Commission falls within the exemptions under Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(d) No order as to costs.
25. The writ petition stands disposed off.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 7 ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:13:51 :::