ICAI Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- 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 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 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 realise 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.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2040/2011]
R.V. RAVEENDRAN,J.
1. 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 2Regulations, 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) :
a. “Educational qualification of the examiners & Moderators with subject wise classifications. (you may not give me the names of the examiners & moderators).
b. Procedure established for evaluation of exam papers.
c. Instructions issued to the examiners, and moderators oral as well as written if any.
d. Procedure established for selection of examiners & moderators. 5) Model answers if any given to the examiners & moderators if any.
e. Remuneration paid to the examiners & moderators.
f. Number of students appearing for exams at all levels in the last 2 years (i.e. PE1/PE2/PCC/CPE/Final with break up)
g. Number of students that passed at the 1st attempt from the above.
h. 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.
i. 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.
j. Educational qualifications of the persons performing the verification of marks under Regulation 38 & remuneration paid to them.
k. 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 :
a. “1. Professionals, academicians and officials with relevant academic and practical experience and exposure in relevant and related fields.
b. 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.
c. 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:
