Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi
A public body need not disclose the names and addresses of interview-board members, because Section 8(1)(g) protects information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s safety. For such safety-sensitive details the exemption is the rule, and disclosure of third-party identities happens only on a strong, larger public interest.
Issue before the court
Whether a Public Service Commission must disclose the names, designations and addresses of its interview-board members under the RTI Act.
Facts in brief
An applicant sought the identities — names, designations and addresses — of the BPSC interview-board members and related examiner details. The Commission refused, citing risk to those individuals.
Holding / decision
The Supreme Court held that the names, designations and addresses of interview-board members need not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(g), as disclosure could endanger their safety and expose them to pressure. For such safety-sensitive information, the Court observed, the Section 8 exemption is the rule and disclosure the exception, available only where a larger public interest is shown.
Information that could endanger a person’s safety — such as the identity of interviewers or examiners — is protected under Section 8(1)(g), and such third-party identities are disclosed only on a demonstrated larger public interest.
You can question the fairness and method of a selection — criteria, cut-offs, your own marks — but you generally cannot obtain the personal identities and addresses of interviewers or examiners.
What RTI can help you get
- The selection method, criteria and your own marks
- Aggregate or process information that does not identify and endanger individuals
- Third-party identity only where a strong larger public interest is established
What RTI may not give you
- Names, designations and addresses of interview-board members or examiners
- Information whose disclosure could endanger a person’s life or safety under Section 8(1)(g)
- Third-party personal details with no overriding public interest
When to cite this case
When seeking — or resisting — disclosure of examiner or interviewer identities, or other third-party details whose disclosure could risk personal safety.
Later developments / current status
The decision is a leading authority on Section 8(1)(g) and on selection-process privacy, frequently cited by Public Service Commissions and Information Commissions.
Source & verification
Related FileMyRTI services
Use RTI Dost to draft a recruitment-transparency RTI focused on process and your own marks.
Login / Sign up
Login With Google
Continue as GuestOr use your email Address
*We value your trust. Your information remains private and protected with FileMyRTI