LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, September 2, 2011

The appellant Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short `ICAI') is a body corporate established under section 3 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. One of the functions of the appellant council is to conduct the examination of candidates for enrolment as Chartered Accountants. The first respondent appeared in the Chartered Accountants' final examination conducted by ICAI in November, 2007. The results were declared in January 2008. The first respondent who was not successful in the examination applied for verification of marks


                                             1






                                                                                Reportable


                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA




                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 OF 2011


                      [Arising out of SLP (C) No.2040/2011]








The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India                       ... Appellant




Vs.




Shaunak H.Satya & Ors.                                                ... Respondents








                                   J U D G M E N T




R.V.RAVEENDRAN,J.








       Leave granted. 




2.     The   appellant   Institute   of   Chartered   Accountants   of   India   (for   short 




`ICAI')   is   a   body   corporate   established   under   section   3   of   the   Chartered 




Accountants Act, 1949. One of the functions of the appellant council is to 




conduct   the   examination   of   candidates   for   enrolment   as   Chartered 




Accountants.   The   first   respondent   appeared   in   the   Chartered   Accountants' 




final examination conducted by ICAI in November, 2007. The results were 




declared in January 2008. The first respondent who was not successful in the 




examination applied for verification of marks. The appellant carried out the 




verification in accordance with the provisions of the Chartered Accountants 



                                                   2






Regulations, 1988 and found that there was no discrepancy in evaluation of 




answerscripts. The appellant informed the first respondent accordingly.








3.    On   18.1.2008   the   appellant   submitted   an   application   seeking   the 




following information under 13 heads, under the Right to Information Act, 




2005 (`RTI Act' for short) :




      "1) Educational qualification of the examiners & Moderators with subject 


      wise classifications. (you may not give me the names of the examiners & 


      moderators).




      2) Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.




      3) Instructions issued to the examiners, and moderators oral as well as 


      written if any.




      4) Procedure established for selection of examiners & moderators.




      5) Model answers if any given to the examiners & moderators if any.




      6) Remuneration paid to the examiners & moderators.




      7) Number of students appearing for exams at all levels in the last 2 years 


      (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)




      8) Number of students that passed at the 1st attempt from the above.




      9)   From   the   number   of   students   that   failed   in   the   last   2   years   (i.e. 


      PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final   with   break   up)   from   the   above,   how   many 


      students opted for verification of marks as per regulation 38.




      10) Procedure adopted at the time of verification of marks as above.




      11) Number of students whose marks were positively changed out of those 


      students that opted for verification of marks.




      12) Educational  qualifications  of the  persons performing the verification 


      of marks under Regulation 38 & remuneration paid to them.




      13)   Number   of   times   that   the   council   has   revised   the   marks   of   any 


      candidate,   or  any   class  of  candidates,  in  accordance  with  regulation 



                                                 3






      39(2)   of   the   Chartered   Accountants   Regulations,   1988,   the   criteria 


      used for such discretion, the quantum of such revision, the quantum 


      of   such   revision,   the   authority   that   decides   such   discretion,   and   the 


      number   of   students   along   with   the   quantum   of   revision   affected   by 


      such   revision   in   the   last   5   exams,   held   at   all   levels   (i.e. 


      PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)."  


                                                                     (emphasis supplied)






4.    The   appellant   by   its   reply   dated   22.2.2008   gave   the   following 




responses/information in response to the 13 queries :




      "1. Professionals, academicians and officials with relevant academic and 


      practical experience and exposure in relevant and related fields.




      2&3.   Evaluation   of   answer   books   is   carried   out   in   terms   of   the 


      guidance   including   instructions   provided   by   Head   Examiners 


      appointed   for   each   subject(s).   Subsequently,   a   review   thereof   is 


      undertaken for the purpose of moderators. 




      4.   In   terms   of   (1)   above,   a   list   of   examiners   is   maintained   under 


      Regulation 42 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. Based on 


      the performance of the examiners, moderators are appointed from amongst 


      the examiners.




      5. Solutions are given in confidence  of examiners for the  purpose  of 


      evaluation.   Services   of   moderators   are   utilized   in   our   context   for 


      paper setting.




      6. Rs.50/-  per answer book is paid to the examiner while Rs.10,000/-  is 


      paid to the moderator for each paper.




      7. The number of students who appeared in the last two years is as follow:




       Month   &                        Number of students Appeared


       Year


                      PE-I         PE-II         PCC          CPE*            FINAL


       Nov.,2005      16228        47522         Not held     Not held        28367


       May,2006       32215        49505         Not held     Not held        26254


       Nov.,2006      16089        49220         Not held     27629           24704


       May,2007       6194         56624         51           42910           23490




      *CPE is read as Common Proficiency Test (CPT).



                                                4






8.   Since   such   a   data   is   not   compiled,   it   is   regretted   that   the   number   of 


students who passed Final Examination at the 1st attempt cannot be made 


available.




9.   The   number   of   students   who   applied   for   the   verification   of   answer 


books is as follows:-








 Month              &  Number  of students who  applied  for verification  from 


 Year                   among the failed candidates*


                        PE-I        PE-II            PCC            CPE               FINAL


 Nov.,2005              598         4150             Not held       Not held          4432


 May,2006               1607        4581             Not held       Not held          4070


 Nov.,2006              576         4894             Not held       205               3352


 May,2007               204         5813             07             431               3310




* This figure may contain some pass candidates also.




10.   Each   request   for   verification   is   processed   in   accordance   with 


       Regulation   39(4)   of   the   Chartered   Accountants   Regulation,   1988 


       through   well   laid   down   scientific   and   meticulous   procedure   and   a 


       comprehensive   checking   is   done   before   arriving   at   any   conclusion. 


       The process  of verification  starts after declaration of result and each 


       request is processed on first come first served basis. The verification of 


       the  answer  books,  as  requested,  is done by two  independent  persons 


       separately and then, reviewed by an Officer of the Institute and upon 


       his   satisfaction,   the   letter   informing   the   outcome   of   the   verification 


       exercise   is   issued   after   the   comprehensive   check   has   been 


       satisfactorily completed.




11.        The number of students who were declared passed consequent to 


the verification of answer books is as given below:-








 Month              &  Number  of students who  applied  for verification  from 


 Year                   among the failed candidates*


                        PE-I        PE-II            PCC            CPE               FINAL


 Nov.,2005              14          40               Not held       Not held          37


 May,2006               24          86               Not held       Not held          30


 Nov.,2006              07          61               Not held       02                35


 May,2007               03          56               Nil            Nil               27




* This figure may contain some pass candidates also.




12.        Independent   persons   such   as   retired   Govt.   teachers/Officers   are 


assigned   the   task   of   verification   of   answer   books   work.   A   token 



                                                     5






       honorarium   of  Rs.6/-   per  candidate   besides  lump   sum   daily  conveyance 


       allowance is paid.




       13. The Examination Committee in terms of Regulation 39(2) has the 


           authority   to  revise   the   marks   based   on   the   findings   of   the   Head 


           Examiners   and   incidental   information   in   the   knowledge   of   the 


           Examination   Committee,   in   its   best   wisdom.   Since   the   details 


           sought   are   highly   confidential   in   nature   and   there   is   no   larger 


           public   interest   warrants   disclosure,   the   same   is   denied   under 


           Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."




                                                                           (emphasis supplied)










5.     Not   being   satisfied   with   the   same,   the   respondent   filed   an   appeal 




before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, 




by   order   dated   10.4.2008,   concurring   with   the   order   of   the   Chief   Public 




Information Officer of the appellant. The first respondent thereafter filed a 




second appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short `CIC') 




in regard to queries (1) to (5) and (7) to (13). CIC by order dated 23.12.2008 




rejected the appeal in regard to queries 3, 5 and 13 (as also Query 2) while 




directing the disclosure of information in regard to the other questions. We 




extract below the reasoning given by the CIC to refuse disclosure in regard 




to queries 3,5 and 13.




       "Re: Query No.3. 






       Decision:




       This   request   of   the   Appellant   cannot   be   without   seriously   and   perhaps 


       irretrievably compromising the entire examination process. An instruction 


       issued   by   a   public   authority   -   in   this   case,   examination   conducting 


       authority   -   to   its   examiners   is   strictly   confidential.   There   is   an   implied 


       contract   between   the   examiners   and   the   examination   conducting   public 



                                                     6






        authority. It would be inappropriate to disclose this information. This item 


        of information too, like the previous one, attracts section 8(1)(d) being the 


        intellectual   property   of   the   public   authority   having   being   developed 


        through   careful   empirical   and   intellectual   study   and   analysis   over   the 


        years.  I, therefore,  hold that this item of query attracts  exemption  under 


        section 8(1)(e) as well as section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. 






        Re : Query No.5. 






        Decision:




        Respondents   have   explained   that   what   they   provide   to   the   examiners   is 


        "solutions" and not "model answers" as assumed by the appellant. For the 


        aid of the students and examinees, "suggested answers" to the questions in 


        an exam are brought out and sold in the market. 




        It would be wholly inappropriate to provide to the students the solutions 


        given   to   the   questions   only   for   the   exclusive   use   of   the   examiners   and 


        moderators.   Given   the   confidentiality   of   interaction   between   the   public 


        authority   holding   the   examinations   and   the   examiners,   the   "solutions" 


        qualifies to be items barred by section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This item of 


        information   also   attracts   section   8(1)(d)   being   the   exclusive   intellectual 


        property   of   the   public   authority.   Respondents   have   rightly   advised   the 


        appellant to secure the "suggested answers" to the questions from the open 


        market, where these are available for sale.






        Re : Query No.13. 






        Decision:




        I find no infirmity in the reply furnished to the appellant. It is a categorical 


        statement and must be accepted as such. Appellant seems to have certain 


        presumptions   and   assumptions   about   what   these   replies   should   be. 


        Respondents are not obliged to cater to that. It is therefore held that there 


        shall   be   no   further   disclosure   of   information   as   regards   this   item   of 


        query."










6.      Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of information sought under items 




3,   5   and   13,   the   first   respondent   approached   the   Bombay   High   Court   by 




filing   a   writ   petition.   The   High   Court   allowed   the   said   petition   by   order 



                                                    7






dated   30.11.2010   and   directed   the   appellant   to   supply   the   information   in 




regard to queries 3, 5 and 13, on the following reasoning :




        "According   to   the   Central   Information   Commission   the   solutions   which 


        have been supplied by the Board to the examiners are given in confidence 


        and therefore, they are entitled to protection under Section 8(1)(e) of the 


        RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) does not protect confidential information and the 


        claim   of   intellectual   property   has   not   made   by   the   respondent   No.2 


        anywhere.   In   the   reply   it   is   suggested   that   the   suggested   answers   are 


        published and sold in open market by the Board. Therefore, there can be 


        no confidentiality about suggested answers. It is no where explained what 


        is the difference between the suggested answers and the solutions. In our 


        opinion, the orders of both Authorities in this respect also suffer from non-


        application of mind and therefore they are liable to be set aside. We find 


        that the right given under the Right to Information Act has been dealt with 


        by the Authorities under that Act in most casual manner without properly 


        applying their minds to the material on record. In our opinion, therefore, 


        information   sought   against   queries   Nos.3,5   and   13   could   not   have   been 


        denied   by the  Authorities   to the   petitioner.  The  principal  defence  of  the 


        respondent No.2 is that the information is confidential. Till the result of 


        the examination is declared, the information sought by the petitioner has to 


        be treated as confidential, but once the result is declared, in our opinion, 


        that   information   cannot   be   treated   as   confidential.   We   were   not   shown 


        anything   which   would   even   indicate   that   it   is   necessary   to   keep   the 


        information in relation to the examination which is over and the result is 


        also declared as confidential."


         






7.      The   said   order   of   the   High   Court   is   challenged   in   this   appeal   by 




special   leave.   The   appellant   submitted   that   it   conducts   the   following 




examinations:   (i)   the   common   proficiency   test;   (ii)   professional   education 




examination-II (till May  2010);  (iii) professional competence  examination; 




(iv) integrated professional competence examination; (v) final examination; 




and   (vi)   post   qualification   course   examinations.   A   person   is   enrolled   as   a 




Chartered   Accountant   only   after   passing   the   common   proficiency   test, 



                                                     8






professional            educational            examination-II/professional                    competence 




examination and final examination. The number of candidates who applied 




for various examinations conducted by ICAI were 2.03 lakhs in 2006, 4.16 




lakhs   in   2007;   3.97   lakh   candidates   in   2008   and   4.20   lakhs   candidates   in 




2009. ICAI conducts the examinations in about 343 centres spread over 147 




cities throughout the country and abroad. The appellant claims to follow the 




following elaborate system with established procedures  in connection with 




its   examinations,   taking   utmost   care   with   regard   to   valuation   of   answer 




sheets and preparation of results and also in carrying out verification in case 




a student applies for the same in accordance with the  following Regulations:




        "Chartered Accountants with a standing of minimum of 5-7 years  in the 


        profession   or   teachers   with   a   minimum   experience   of   5-7   years   in 


        university education system are empanelled as examiners of the Institute. 


        The eligibility criteria to be empanelled as examiner for the examinations 


        held in November, 2010 was that a chartered accountant with a minimum 


        of 3 years' standing, if in practice, or with a minimum of 10 yeas standing, 


        if in service and University lecturers with a minimum of 5 years' teaching 


        experience   at   graduate/post   graduate   level   in   the   relevant   subjects   with 


        examiner ship experience of 5 years.  The said criteria is continued to be 


        followed.   The   bio-data   of   such   persons   who   wish   to   be   empanelled   are 


        scrutinized by the Director of Studies of the Institute in the first instance. 


        Thereafter,  Examination  Committee   considers  each   such  application   and 


        takes a decision thereon. The examiners, based on their performance and 


        experience   with   the   system   of   the   ICAI,   are   invited   to   take   up   other 


        assignments of preparation of question paper, suggested solution, marking 


        scheme,   etc.   and   also   appointed   as   Head   Examiners   to   supervise   the 


        evaluation   carried   out   by   the   different   examiners   in   a   particular   subject 


        from time to time. 




        A question paper and its solution are finalized by different experts in the 


        concerned  subject  at  3 stages. In addition,  the  solution  is also  vetted  by 


        Director of Studies of the Institute after the examination is held and before 


        the   evaluation   of   the   answer   sheets   are   carried   out   by   examiners.   All 



                                                       9






        possible   alternate   solutions   to   a   particular   question   as   intimated   by 


        different   examiners   in   a   subject   are   also   included   in   the   solution.   Each 


        examiner in a particular subject is issued detailed instructions on marking 


        scheme   by   the   Head   Examiners   and   general   guidelines   for   evaluation 


        issued   by   the   ICAI.   In   addition,   performance   of   each   examiner,   to 


        ascertain   whether   the   said   examiner   has   complied   with   the   instructions 


        issued   as   also   the   general   guidelines   of   the   Institute,   is   assessed   by   the 


        Head   Examiner   at   two   stages   before   the   declaration   of   result.   The   said 


        process  has  been   evolved  based   on  the  experience   gained   in  the  last  60 


        years of conducting examinations and to ensure all possible uniformity in 


        evaluation   of   answer   sheets   carried   out   by   numerous   examiners   in   a 


        particular subject and to provide justice to the candidates. 




        The examination process/procedure/systems of the ICAI are well in place 


        and have been evolved over several decades out of experience gained. The 


        said process/procedure/systems have adequate checks to ensure fair results 


        and also ensure that due justice is done to each candidate and no candidate 


        ever suffers on any count."








8.      The appellant contends that the information sought as per queries (3) 




and   (5)   -   that   is,   instructions   and   model   answers,   if   any,   issued   to   the 




examiners and moderators by ICAI cannot be disclosed as they are exempted 




from disclosure under clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of 




RTI Act. It is submitted that the request for information is also liable to be 




rejected  under section  9 of the Act.  They also  contended that in regard  to 




query   No.(13),   whatever   information   available   had   been   furnished,   apart 




from generally invoking section 8(1)(e) to claim exemption.










9.      On   the   said   contentions,   the   following   questions   arise   for   our 




consideration:



                                              10






(i)      Whether the instructions and solutions to questions (if any) given by 




ICAI   to   examiners   and   moderators,   are   intellectual   property   of   the   ICAI, 




disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third parties and 




therefore exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act?






(ii)     Whether   providing   access   to   the   information   sought   (that   is 




instructions   and   solutions   to   questions   issued   by   ICAI   to   examiners   and 




moderators)   would  involve  an  infringement  of  the  copyright  and  therefore 




the request for information is liable to be rejected under section 9 of the RTI 




Act?








(iii)    Whether   the   instructions   and   solutions   to   questions   are   information 




made available to examiners and moderators in their fiduciary capacity and 




therefore exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act?








(iv)     Whether   the   High   Court   was   justified   in   directing   the   appellant   to 




furnish   to   the   first   respondent   five   items   of   information   sought   (in   query 




No.13) relating to Regulation 39(2) of  Chartered Accountants Regulations, 




1988?






Re: Question (i)








10.      The   term   `intellectual   property'   refers   to   a   category   of   intangible 




rights   protecting   commercially   valuable   products   of   human   intellect 




comprising   primarily   trade   mark,   copyright   and   patent   right,   as   also   trade 




secret   rights,   publicity   rights,   moral   rights   and   rights   against   unfair 



                                               11






competition (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 7th  Edition, page 813). Question 




papers,   instructions   regarding   evaluation   and   solutions   to   questions   (or 




model   answers)   which   are   furnished   to   examiners   and   moderators   in 




connection  with evaluation  of answer  scripts, are literary  works  which are 




products of human intellect and therefore subject to a copyright. The paper 




setters and authors thereof (other than employees of ICAI), who are the first 




owners   thereof   are   required   to   assign   their   copyright   in   regard   to   the 




question papers/solutions in favour of ICAI. We extract below the relevant 




standard communication sent by ICAI in that behalf: 




       "The   Council   is   anxious   to   prevent   the   unauthorized   circulation   of 


       Question Papers set for the Chartered Accountants Examinations as well 


       as the solutions thereto. With that object in view, the Council proposes to 


       reserve all copy-rights in the question papers as well as solutions. In order 


       to enable the Council to retain the copy-rights, it has been suggested that it 


       would be advisable to obtain a specific assignment of any copy-rights or 


       rights of publication that you may be deemed to possess in the questions 


       set by you for the Chartered Accountants Examinations and the solutions 


       thereto in favour of the Council. I have no doubt that you will appreciate 


       that this is merely a formality to obviate any misconception likely to arise 


       later on."










In response to it, the paper setters/authors give declarations of assignment, 




assigning their copyrights in the question papers and solutions prepared by 




them, in favour of ICAI. Insofar as instructions prepared by the employees 




of   ICAI,   the   copyright   vests   in   ICAI.   Consequently,   the   question   papers, 




solutions to questions and instructions are the intellectual properties of ICAI. 



                                               12






The appellant contended that if the question papers, instructions or solutions 




to questions/model answers are disclosed before the examination is held, it 




would harm the competitive position of all other candidates who participate 




in   the   examination   and   therefore   the   exemption   under   section   8(1)(d)   is 




squarely attracted.








11.     The first respondent does not dispute that the appellant is entitled to 




claim a copyright in regard to the question papers, solutions/model answers, 




instructions relating to evaluation and therefore the said material constitute 




intellectual   property   of   the   appellant.   But   he   contends   that   the   exemption 




under  section  8(1)(d)   will  not be  available   if  the information  is  merely  an 




intellectual property. The exemption under section 8(1)(d) is available only 




in regard to such intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm 




the   competitive   position   of   any   third   party.   It   was   submitted   that   the 




appellant   has   not   been   able   to   demonstrate   that   the   disclosure   of   the   said 




intellectual property (instructions and solutions/model answers) would harm 




the competitive position of any third party. 








12.     Information   can   be   sought   under   the   RTI   Act   at   different   stages   or 




different points of time. What is exempted from disclosure at one point of 




time may cease to be exempted at a later point of time, depending upon the 



                                                13






nature of exemption. For example, any information which is exempted from 




disclosure under section 8, is liable to be disclosed if the application is made 




in   regard   to   the   occurrence   or   event   which   took   place   or   occurred   or 




happened twenty years prior to the date of the request, vide section 8(3) of 




the   RTI   Act.   In   other   words,   information   which   was   exempted   from 




disclosure, if an application is made within twenty years of the occurrence, 




may not be exempted if the application is made after twenty years. Similarly, 




if   information   relating   to   the   intellectual   property,   that   is   the   question 




papers, solutions/model answers and instructions, in regard to any particular 




examination   conducted   by   the   appellant   cannot   be   disclosed   before   the 




examination   is   held,   as   it   would   harm   the   competitive   position   of 




innumerable third parties who are taking the said examination. Therefore it 




is   obvious   that   the   appellant   examining   body   is   not   liable   to   give   to   any 




citizen   any   information   relating   to   question       papers,   solutions/model 




answers and instructions relating to a particular examination before the date 




of such examination. But the position will be different once the examination 




is held. Disclosure of the question papers, model answers and instructions in 




regard   to   any   particular   examination,   would   not   harm   the   competitive 




position of any third party once the examination is held. In fact the question 




papers are disclosed to everyone at the time of examination.   The appellant 



                                               14






voluntarily   publishes   the   "suggested   answers"   in   regard   to   the   question 




papers   in   the   form   of   a   book   for   sale   every   year,   after   the   examination. 




Therefore   section   8(1)(d)   of   the   RTI   Act   does   not   bar   or   prohibit   the 




disclosure   of   question   papers,   model   answers   (solutions   to   questions)   and 




instructions   if   any   given   to   the   examiners   and   moderators   after   the 




examination and after the evaluation of answerscripts is completed, as at that 




stage   they   will   not   harm   the   competitive   position   of   any   third   party.   We 




therefore   reject   the   contention   of   the   appellant   that   if   an   information   is 




exempt at any given point of time, it continues to be exempt for all time to 




come. 








Re : Question (ii)








13.     Section   9   of   the   RTI   Act   provides   that   a   Central   or   State   Public 




Information   Officer   may   reject   a   request   for   information   where   providing 




access   to   such   information   would   involve   an   infringement   of   copyright 




subsisting in a person other than the State. The word `State' used in section 




9     of   RTI   Act   refers   to   the   Central   or   State   Government,   Parliament   or 




Legislature  of a State,  or any  local or other  authorities  as  described under 




Article 12 of the Constitution. The reason for using the word `State' and not 




`public   authority'   in   section   9   of   RTI   Act   is   apparently   because   the 



                                                15






definition   of   `public   authority'   in   the   Act   is   wider   than   the   definition   of 




`State'   in   Article   12,   and   includes   even   non-government   organizations 




financed   directly   or   indirectly   by   funds   provided   by   the   appropriate 




government.   Be   that   as   it   may.   An   application   for   information   would   be 




rejected under section 9 of RTI Act, only if information sought involves an 




infringement of copyright subsisting in a  person other than the State. ICAI 




being   a   statutory   body   created   by   the  Chartered   Accountants   Act,   1948  is 




`State'.   The   information   sought   is   a   material   in   which   ICAI   claims   a 




copyright. It is not the case of ICAI that anyone else has a copyright in such 




material. In fact it has specifically pleaded that even if the question papers, 




solutions/model   answers,   or   other   instructions   are   prepared   by   any   third 




party   for   ICAI,   the   copyright   therein   is   assigned   in   favour   of   ICAI. 




Providing access to information in respect of which ICAI holds a copyright, 




does   not   involve   infringement   of   a   copyright   subsisting   in   a  person   other  




than   the   State.  Therefore   ICAI   is   not   entitled   to   claim   protection   against 




disclosure under section 9 of the RTI Act.










14.     There   is   yet   another   reason   why   section   9   of   RTI   Act   will   be 




inapplicable.   The   words   `infringement   of   copyright'   have   a   specific 




connotation.   Section   51   of   the   Copyright   Act,   1957   provides   when   a 



                                                     16






copyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed. Section 52 of the Act 




enumerates the acts which are not infringement of a copyright. A combined 




reading of sections 51 and 52(1)(a) of Copyright Act shows that furnishing 




of information by an examining body, in response to a query under the RTI 




Act may not be termed as an infringement of copyright. Be that as it may.










Re : Question (iii)








15.    We   will   now   consider   the   third   contention   of   ICAI   that   the 




information   sought   being   an  information   available   to   a   person   in   his  




fiduciary   relationship,  is   exempted   under   section   8(1)(e)   of   the   RTI   Act. 




This   Court   in  Central   Board   of   Secondary   Education   &   Anr.   v.   Aditya  




Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCALE 645] considered the meaning of the 




words  information   available   to   a   person   in   his   fiduciary   capacity  and 




observed thus: 




       "But   the   words   `information   available   to   a   person   in   his   fiduciary 


       relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well 


       recognized   sense,   that   is   to   refer   to   persons   who   act   in   a   fiduciary 


       capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are 


       to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - 


       a   trustee   with   reference   to   the   beneficiary   of   the   trust,   a   guardian   with 


       reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with 


       reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a 


       client,   a   doctor   or   nurse   with   reference   to   a   patient,   an   agent   with 


       reference   to   a   principal,   a   partner   with   reference   to   another   partner,   a 


       director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with 


       reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an 


       employer   with   reference   to   the   confidential   information   relating   to   the 



                                             17






       employee,   and   an   employee   with   reference   to   business 


       dealings/transaction of the employer."








16.    The instructions and `solutions to questions' issued to the examiners 




and moderators in connection with evaluation of answer scripts, as noticed 




above,   is   the   intellectual   property   of   ICAI.   These   are   made   available   by 




ICAI to the examiners and moderators to enable them to evaluate the answer 




scripts correctly and effectively, in a proper manner, to achieve uniformity 




and   consistency   in   evaluation,   as   a   large   number   of   evaluators   and 




moderators   are   engaged   by   ICAI   in   connection   with   the   evaluation.   The 




instructions   and   solutions   to   questions   are   given   by   the   ICAI   to   the 




examiners   and   moderators   to   be   held   in   confidence.   The   examiners   and 




moderators are required to maintain absolute secrecy and cannot disclose the 




answer scripts, the evaluation of answer scripts, the instructions of ICAI and 




the solutions to questions made available by ICAI, to anyone. The examiners 




and moderators are in the position of agents and ICAI is in the position of 




principal in regard to such information which ICAI gives to the examiners 




and   moderators   to   achieve   uniformity,   consistency   and   exactness   of 




evaluation of the answer scripts. When anything is given and taken in trust 




or   in   confidence,   requiring   or   expecting   secrecy   and   confidentiality   to   be 



                                                18






maintained   in   that   behalf,   it   is   held   by   the   recipient   in   a  fiduciary  




relationship.








17.     It   should   be   noted   that   section   8(1)(e)   uses   the   words   "information  




available   to   a   person   in   his   fiduciary   relationship.  Significantly   section 




8(1)(e) does not use the words "information available to a public authority  




in its fiduciary relationship". The use of the words "person" shows that the 




holder   of   the   information   in   a   fiduciary   relationship   need   not   only   be   a 




`public   authority'   as   the   word   `person'   is   of   much   wider   import   than   the 




word   `public   authority'.   Therefore   the   exemption   under   section   8(1)(e)   is 




available not only in regard to information that is held by a public authority 




(in   this   case   the   examining   body)   in   a   fiduciary   capacity,   but   also   to   any 




information that is given or made available by a public authority to anyone 




else for being held in a fiduciary relationship. In other words, anything given 




and taken in confidence expecting confidentiality to be maintained will be 




information   available   to   a   person   in   fiduciary   relationship.   As   a 




consequence, it has to be held that the instructions and solutions to questions 




communicated by the examining body to the examiners, head-examiners and 




moderators,   are   information   available   to   such   persons   in   their   fiduciary 




relationship and therefore exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of 




RTI Act.



                                               19






18.     The  information  to which  RTI  Act  applies  falls into  two categories, 




namely, (i) information which promotes  transparency and accountability in 




the   working   of   every   public   authority,   disclosure   of   which   helps   in 




containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of 




section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information held by public authorities 




not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information 




falling   under   the   first   category,   the   public   authorities   owe   a   duty   to 




disseminate the information widely  suo moto  to the public  so as to make it 




easily   accessible   to   the   public.   In   regard   to   information   enumerated   or 




required   to   be   enumerated   under   section   4(1)(b)   and   (c)   of   RTI   Act, 




necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the RTI Act, will 




have to act in a pro-active manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure 




that the fight against corruption goes on relentlessly. But in regard to other 




information which do not fall under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, there 




is   a   need   to   proceed   with   circumspection   as   it   is   necessary   to   find   out 




whether they are exempted from disclosure. One of the objects of democracy 




is to bring about transparency of information to contain corruption and bring 




about   accountability.   But   achieving   this   object   does   not   mean   that   other 




equally   important   public   interests   including   efficient   functioning   of   the 




governments and public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, 



                                              20






preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored 




or sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public 




interests,   that   is,   ensuring   transparency   to   bring   in   accountability   and 




containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the 




revelation   of   information,   in   actual   practice,   does   not   harm   or   adversely 




affect   other   public   interests   which   include   efficient   functioning   of   the 




governments,   optimum   use   of   limited   fiscal   resources   and   preservation   of 




confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other hand. While sections 3 




and  4  seek  to  achieve   the  first  objective,   sections   8,  9,  10  and  11  seek   to 




achieve   the   second   objective.   Therefore   when   section   8   exempts   certain 




information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter 




on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting 




other   public   interests   essential   for   the   fulfilment   and   preservation   of 




democratic   ideals.   Therefore   in   dealing  with   information   not   falling   under 




section 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI Act will not 




read  the  exemptions  in  section  8  in  a   restrictive  manner  but  in  a  practical 




manner   so   that   the   other   public   interests   are   preserved   and   the   RTI   Act 




attains   a   fine   balance   between   its   goal   of   attaining   transparency   of 




information and safeguarding the other public interests. 



                                               21






19.     Among   the   ten   categories   of   information   which   are   exempted   from 




disclosure under section 8 of RTI Act, six categories which are described in 




clauses  (a), (b), (c),  (f), (g) and  (h) carry absolute  exemption.  Information 




enumerated in clauses (d), (e) and (j) on the other hand get only conditional 




exemption, that is  the exemption  is subject  to the overriding  power of the 




competent   authority   under   the   RTI   Act   in   larger   public   interest,   to   direct 




disclosure   of   such   information.   The   information   referred   to   in   clause   (i) 




relates to an exemption for a specific period, with an obligation to make the 




said   information   public   after   such   period.   The   information   relating   to 




intellectual   property   and   the   information   available   to   persons   in   their 




fiduciary relationship, referred to in clauses (d) and (e) of section 8(1) do not 




enjoy   absolute   exemption.   Though   exempted,   if   the   competent   authority 




under   the   Act   is   satisfied   that  larger   public   interest   warrants   disclosure   of 




such information, such information will have to be disclosed. It is needless 




to say that the competent authority will have to record reasons for holding 




that an exempted information should be disclosed in larger public interest.








20.     In this case the Chief Information Commissioner rightly held that the 




information sought under queries (3) and (5) were exempted under section 




8(1)(e)   and  that  there   was  no  larger   public  interest  requiring  denial  of  the 




statutory exemption regarding such information. The High Court fell into an 



                                             22






error in holding that the information  sought under queries (3) and (5) was 




not exempted. 








Re : Question (iv)




21.    Query  (13) of the  first  respondent  required   the appellant  to disclose 




the   following   information:   (i)   The   number   of   times   ICAI   had   revised   the 




marks of any candidate or any class of candidates under Regulation 39(2); 




(ii) the criteria used for exercising   such discretion for revising the marks; 




(iii)   the   quantum   of   such   revisions;   (iv)   the   authority   who   decides   the 




exercise of discretion to make such revision; and (v) the number of students 




(with particulars  of quantum of revision) affected by such revision held in 




the last five examinations at all levels. 








22.    Regulation   39(2)   of   the   Chartered   Accountants   Regulations,   1988 




provides that the council may in its discretion, revise the marks obtained by 




all candidates or a section of candidates in a particular paper or papers or in 




the   aggregate,   in   such   manner   as   may   be   necessary   for   maintaining   its 




standards of pass percentage provided in the Regulations. Regulation 39(2) 




thus   provides   for   what   is   known   as   `moderation',   which   is   a   necessary 




concomitant of evaluation process of answer scripts where a large number of 




examiners  are   engaged   to  evaluate   a   large   number   of  answer   scripts.   This 



                                                   23






Court explained the standard process of moderation in Sanjay Singh v. U.P.  




Public Service Commission - 2007 (3) SCC 720 thus:








      "When   a   large   number   of   candidates   appear   for   an   examination,   it   is 


      necessary to have uniformity and consistency in valuation of the answer- 


      scripts.   Where   the   number   of   candidates   taking   the   examination   are 


      limited   and   only   one   examiner   (preferably   the   paper-setter   himself) 


      evaluates   the   answer-scripts,   it   is   to   be   assumed   that   there   will   be 


      uniformity in the valuation. But where a large number of candidates take 


      the   examination,   it   will   not   be   possible   to   get   all   the   answer-scripts 


      evaluated   by   the   same   examiner.   It,   therefore,   becomes   necessary   to 


      distribute the answer-scripts among several examiners for valuation with 


      the   paper-setter   (or   other   senior   person)   acting   as   the   Head   Examiner. 


      When   more   than   one   examiner   evaluate   the   answer-scripts   relating   to   a 


      subject,   the   subjectivity   of   the   respective   examiner   will   creep   into   the 


      marks awarded by him to the answer- scripts allotted to him for valuation. 


      Each examiner will apply his own yardstick to assess the answer-scripts. 


      Inevitably   therefore,   even   when   experienced   examiners   receive   equal 


      batches   of   answer   scripts,   there   is   difference   in   average   marks   and   the 


      range   of   marks   awarded,   thereby   affecting   the   merit   of   individual 


      candidates. This apart, there is 'Hawk- Dove' effect. Some examiners are 


      liberal in valuation and tend to award more  marks. Some examiners  are 


      strict and tend to give less marks. Some may be moderate and balanced in 


      awarding marks. Even among those who are liberal or those who are strict, 


      there may be variance in the degree of strictness or liberality. This means 


      that if the same answer-script is given to different examiners, there is all 


      likelihood   of   different   marks   being   assigned.   If   a   very   well   written 


      answer-script goes to a strict examiner and a mediocre answer-script goes 


      to a liberal examiner,  the mediocre  answer-script may be awarded more 


      marks than the excellent answer-script.  In other words,  there is 'reduced 


      valuation'   by   a   strict   examiner   and   'enhanced   valuation'   by   a   liberal 


      examiner. This is known as 'examiner variability'  or 'Hawk-Dove effect'. 


      Therefore, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter 


      se the Examiners so that the effect of 'examiner subjectivity' or 'examiner 


      variability'   is   minimised.   The   procedure   adopted   to   reduce   examiner 


      subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The classic method of 


      moderation is as follows:




                                   xxx                    xxx             xxx




      (ii) To achieve uniformity in valuation, where more than one examiner is 


      involved, a meeting of the Head Examiner with all the examiners is held 


      soon  after  the examination.  They discuss  thoroughly the  question paper, 


      the possible answers and the weightage to be given to various aspects of 



                                              24






the answers. They also carry out a sample valuation in the light of their 


discussions. The sample valuation of scripts by each of them is reviewed 


by   the   Head   Examiner   and   variations   in   assigning   marks   are   further 


discussed. After such discussions, a consensus is arrived at in regard to the 


norms   of   valuation   to   be   adopted.   On   that   basis,   the   examiners   are 


required   to   complete   the   valuation   of   answer   scripts.   But   this   by   itself, 


does not bring about uniformity of assessment inter se the examiners. In 


spite   of   the   norms   agreed,   many   examiners   tend   to   deviate   from   the 


expected or agreed norms, as their caution is overtaken by their propensity 


for strictness or liberality or eroticism or carelessness during the course of 


valuation. Therefore, certain further corrective steps become necessary.




(iii) After the valuation is completed by the examiners, the Head Examiner 


conducts a random sample survey of the corrected answer scripts to verify 


whether the norms evolved in the meetings of examiner have actually been 


followed by the examiners...........




(iv)   After   ascertaining   or   assessing   the   standards   adopted   by   each 


examiner,   the  Head  Examiner   may   confirm  the  award  of  marks  without 


any   change   if   the   examiner   has   followed   the   agreed   norms,   or   suggest 


upward   or   downward   moderation,   the   quantum   of   moderation   varying 


according to the degree of liberality or strictness in marking. In regard to 


the top level answer books revalued by the Head Examiner, his award of 


marks is accepted as final. As regards the other answer books below the 


top   level,   to   achieve   maximum   measure   of   uniformity   inter   se   the 


examiners, the awards are moderated as per the recommendations made by 


the Head Examiner.




(v)   If   in   the   opinion   of   the   Head   Examiner   there   has   been   erratic   or 


careless marking by any examiner, for which it is not feasible to have any 


standard   moderation,   the   answer   scripts   valued   by   such   examiner   are 


revalued either by the Head Examiner or any other Examiner who is found 


to have followed the agreed norms.




(vi) Where the number of candidates is very large and the examiners are 


numerous, it may be difficult for one Head Examiner to assess the work of 


all   the   Examiners.   In   such   a   situation,   one   more   level   of   Examiners   is 


introduced.   For   every   ten   or   twenty   examiners,   there   will   be   a   Head 


Examiner   who   checks   the   random   samples   as   above.   The   work   of   the 


Head Examiners, in turn, is checked by a Chief Examiner to ensure proper 


results.




The   above   procedure   of   'moderation'   would   bring   in   considerable 


uniformity and consistency. It should be noted that absolute uniformity or 


consistency in valuation is impossible to achieve where there are several 


examiners and the effort is only to achieve maximum uniformity."



                                                      25






Each examining body will have its own standards of `moderation', drawn up 




with   reference   to   its   own   experiences   and   the   nature   and   scope   of   the 




examinations conducted by it. ICAI shall have to disclose the said standards 




of moderation followed by it, if it has drawn up the same, in response to part 




(ii) of first respondent's query (13). 








23.    In   its   communication   dated   22.2.2008,   ICAI   informed   the   first 




respondent  that  under  Regulation  39(2),   its  Examining  Committee  had  the 




authority to revise the marks based on the findings of the Head Examiners 




and any incidental information in its knowledge. This answers part (iv)  of 




query (13) as to the authority which decides the exercise of the discretion to 




make the revision under Regulation 39(2). 








24.    In   regard   to   parts   (i),   (iii)   and   (v)   of  query   (13),   ICAI   submits   that 




such   data   is   not   maintained.   Reliance   is   placed   upon   the   following 




observations of this Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay:  




       "The   RTI   Act   provides   access   to   all   information  that   is   available   and  


       existing.   This   is   clear   from   a   combined   reading   of   section   3   and   the 


       definitions   of   `information'   and   `right   to   information'   under   clauses   (f) 


       and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in 


       the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant 


       may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the 


       Act.   But   where   the   information   sought   is   not   a   part   of   the   record   of   a 


       public   authority,   and   where   such   information   is   not   required   to   be 


       maintained   under   any   law   or   the   rules   or   regulations   of   the   public 


       authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to 



                                              26






        collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an 


        applicant."










As the information sought under parts (i), (iii) and (v) of query (13) are not 




maintained and is not available in the form of data with the appellant in its 




records, ICAI is not bound to furnish the same. 








General submissions of ICAI








25.     The learned counsel of ICAI submitted that there are several hundred 




examining bodies in the country. With the aspirations of young citizens to 




secure   seats   in   institutions   of   higher   learning   or   to   qualify   for   certain 




professions or to secure jobs, more and more persons participate in more and 




more  examinations.  It is  quite  common  for an examining  body  to conduct 




examinations   for   lakhs   of   candidates   that   too   more   than   once   per   year. 




Conducting   examinations   involving   preparing   the   question   papers, 




conducting the examinations at various centres all over the country, getting 




the   answer   scripts   evaluated   and   declaring   results,   is   an   immense   task   for 




examining   bodies,   to   be   completed   within   fixed   time   schedules.   If   the 




examining   bodies   are   required   to   frequently   furnish   various   kinds   of 




information   as   sought   in   this   case   to   several   applicants,   it   will   add   an 




enormous work load and their existing staff will not be able to cope up with 



                                              27






the additional work involved in furnishing information under the RTI Act. It 




was   submitted   by   ICAI   that   it   conducts   several   examinations   every   year 




where more than four lakhs candidates participate;  that out of them, about 




15-16% are successful, which means that more than three and half lakhs of 




candidates are unsuccessful; that if even one percent at those unsuccessful 




candidates  feel dissatisfied  with the results  and seek  all types of unrelated 




information, the working of ICAI will come to a standstill. It was submitted 




that for every meaningful user of RTI Act, there are several abusers who will 




attempt to disrupt the functioning of the examining bodies by seeking huge 




quantity   of   information.   ICAI   submits   that   the   application   by   the   first 




respondent is a classic case of improper use of the Act, where a candidate 




who has failed in an examination and who does not even choose to take the 




subsequent examination has been engaging ICAI in a prolonged litigation by 




seeking a bundle of information none of which is relevant to decide whether 




his   answer   script   was   properly   evaluated,   nor   have   any   bearing   on 




accountability or reducing corruption. ICAI submits that there should be an 




effective   control   and   screening   of   applications   for   information   by   the 




competent authorities under the Act. We do not agree that first respondent 




had   indulged   in   improper   use   of   RTI   Act.   His   application   is   intended   to 




bring about transparency and accountability in the functioning of ICAI. How 



                                              28






far  he  is  entitled  to  the information  is  a different   issue. Examining  bodies 




like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime 




of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that 




in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no 




longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only 




through   transparency.   Attaining   transparency   no   doubt   would   involve 




additional   work   with   reference   to   maintaining   records   and   furnishing 




information.   Parliament   has   enacted   the   RTI   Act   providing   access   to 




information, after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the 




Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain 




categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the 




applicability of the Act. As the examining bodies have not been exempted, 




and   as   the   examination   processes   of   examining   bodies   have   not   been 




exempted,   the   examining   bodies   will   have   to   gear   themselves   to   comply 




with the provisions of the RTI Act. Additional workload is not a defence. If 




there   are   practical   insurmountable   difficulties,   it   is   open   to   the   examining 




bodies   to  bring  them to  the  notice  of  the  government   for  consideration  so 




that any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may. 








26.     We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard 




to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and 



                                           29






to   reduce   corruption,   falling   under   section   4(1)(b)   and   (c)   and   other 




information   which   may   not   have   a   bearing   on   accountability   or   reducing 




corruption.   The   competent   authorities   under   the   RTI   Act   will   have   to 




maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand 




for   information   does   not   reach   unmanageable   proportions   affecting   other 




public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and 




government,   preservation   of   confidentiality   of   sensitive   information   and 




optimum use of limited fiscal resources. 








27.    In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the 




High Court is set aside and the order of the CIC is restored, subject to one 




modification in regard to query (13): ICAI to disclose to the first respondent,  




the standard criteria, if any, relating to moderation, employed by it, for the  




purpose of making revisions under Regulation 39(2).










                                                             ............................J.


                                                              (R V Raveendran)










New Delhi;                                                  ............................J.


September  2, 2011.                                           (A K Patnaik)