New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), unlike other academic boards, is not under an obligation to disclose details of marks obtained by candidates in competitive exams under the Right To Information Act as it involves preservation of confidential and sensitive matters.

A bench of Justices A.K. Goel and U.U. Lalit agreed with the UPSC's argument that while balancing the right to information and public interest, the court has to consider preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, fiscal resources and other practical difficulties faced by the government in furnishing information that is not germane to transparency or a larger public cause.

The UPSC had pleaded that indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information unrelated to transparency and accountability would be counterproductive as it would adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.

The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct national development and integration, or to destroy peace, tranquillity and harmony among citizens, the UPSC had argued.

Agreeing with the view, the apex court said in a recent judgment: "Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in civil services exams cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically.

"The situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on a different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC... which will not be in public interest.

"However, if a case is made out where the court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the court is certainly entitled to so require in a given... situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rules or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters."

The bench passed the ruling while setting aside directions by Delhi High Court in July 2012 asking the UPSC to furnish certain confidential information sought by Angesh Kumar and others who failed to clear the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010.

On their plea, the high court had directed the UPSC to disclose details of the marks awarded to them in the exam, including information on the cut-off marks for every subject, the scaling methodology and model answers.