-1- 2026:CGHC:26434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1445 of 2020 Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through The Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through The Information Commissioner, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinaysheel Delhi IAS Academy Lokesh Plaza, Near Bottle House, Krishna Public School Compound, Shankar Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 29/06/2026 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by respondent No.1/State Information Commission whereby second appeal filed by respondent No.2 was allowed and the petitioner/PSC was directed to supply the information as sought by respondent No.2 within a Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.03 18:27:27 +0530 -2- period of 30 days. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 had submitted an application under Right To Information Act, 2005 (for short “Act of 2005”) before the Public Information Officer of petitioner/PSC seeking information in relation to : (i) certified copies of all note sheets/documents/correspondence/reports etc. related to the committee formed in 2012 for changes in the syllabus of State Services Main Examination and the changes made in the syllabus; (ii) photocopies of select list in relation to State Civil Services Main Examination 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016. Public Information Officer of petitioner/PSC vide its communication dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-3) informed respondent No.2 that information sought by him under point No.1 could not be supplied in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the Act of 2005 and information under point No.2 is available on website of the PSC. Aggrieved by the communication dated 13.07.2018, respondent No.2 preferred first appeal before the Appellate Authority. First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 14.09.2018 dismissed the appeal on the ground that desired information at point No.1 cannot be supplied by petitioner/PSC in view of provision under Section 8 (1) (d), (j) of the Act of 2005. Thereafter, respondent No.2 preferred Second Appeal before respondent No.1/State Information Commission which came to be allowed whereby the petitioner -PSC was directed to supply relevant information as sought by respondent No.2 within a period of 30 days, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that order passed -3- by the Second Appellate Authority is arbitrary and contrary to the provision prescribed under Section 8 (1) (d), (j) of the Act of 2005. Exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) & (j) is available not only in regard to information held by Public Authority in fiduciary capacity but also any information given or made available by a public authority to any one for being held in fiduciary relationship. Information sought is with regard to third person, hence, falls under exception enumerated under Section 8 of the Act of 2005. Therefore the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 passed by respondent No.1 be set aside being illegal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order passed by the respondent–State Information Commission and submits that the order dated 02.01.2020 has been passed after due consideration of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the information sought by respondent No.2 primarily relates to the process adopted by the Public Service Commission in constituting a committee for revision of the syllabus of the State Civil Services Main Examination, including the relevant file notings, correspondence, reports and documents forming the basis of such decision. Such information pertains to the discharge of public functions by a constitutional/statutory authority and cannot be treated as information held in a fiduciary capacity so as to attract the exemption contained under Section 8(1)(d) or Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. -4- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 sought information regarding - (i) certified copies of all note sheets/ documents/ correspondence/reports etc. related to the committee formed in 2012 for changes in the syllabus of State Services Main Examination and the changes made in the syllabus; and (ii)- photocopies of select list in relation to State Civil Services Main Examination 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016. The Public Information Officer declined to furnish the information as sought under Point No.1 by invoking Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005 and informed the applicant that the information sought under Point No.2 was already available on the official website of the Commission. 7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/PSC is that the information sought relates to third parties and is held in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. 8. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions. 9. Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 defines "information" in wide terms so as to include any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data held by or under the control of a public authority. Section 3 of the Act of 2005 confers upon every citizen the statutory right to information subject -5- only to the provisions of the Act. 10. Section 2 (i) of the Act of 2005 defines the “record” which includes any document, manuscript and file, any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document, any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not ) and any other material produced by a computer or any other device. 11. Section 8 of the Act provides certain exceptions to the general rule of disclosure. Section 8(1)(d) exempts from disclosure information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure. Section 8(1)(e) of the Act, exempts the disclosure of information available to a person in their fiduciary relationship. Such information is withheld to protect confidentiality and trust, unless the competent authority is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies its disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless larger public interest justifies its disclosure. 12. A plain reading of Section 8(1)(d) would show that every information held by a public authority is not protected. The exemption is confined to information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, disclosure of which is likely to prejudice the competitive position of a third party. -6- 13. The petitioner has not demonstrated before this Court as to how the constitution of an expert committee for revision of the syllabus, its recommendations, official correspondence, reports or file notings constitute commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property. No material has been placed on record to establish that disclosure of such information would prejudice the competitive position of any person. The information sought by respondent No.2 pertains to the manner in which the Public Service Commission discharged its statutory functions in revising the syllabus for a public examination. The constitution of an expert committee, reports submitted before the Commission and the consequential decision- making process are matters concerning public administration. Such information cannot be regarded as personal information of any individual. Merely because the records may contain names or opinions of experts would not by itself convert the entire record into "personal information" within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j). Respondent No.1- Commission has taken care of such situation and submission of the petitioner/PSC and ordered that the identity of Members or Authorities participated in proceedings be hided. 14. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the information is held in a fiduciary capacity also deserves rejection. The documents sought have been generated in the course of discharge of statutory functions by the Commission itself. The relationship between an expert committee constituted by a statutory authority and the authority itself, while discharging official functions, cannot automatically be equated with a fiduciary relationship so as to attract -7- exemption under the Act. The select list of third parties participated in recruitment proceeding is a document which in normal course, Public Service Commission use to publish. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481, while interpreting the expression "fiduciary relationship" under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act of 2005 observed as under: “42. Clause (e) to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act states that information made available to a person in his fiduciary relationship shall not be disclosed unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. The expression “fiduciary relationship” was examined and explained in Aditya Bandopadhyay [CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 : 6 SCEC 25] , in the following words : (SCC pp. 524-25, paras 39-41) “39. The term “fiduciary” refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term “fiduciary relationship” is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction(s). The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted -8- anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party. 40. There are also certain relationships where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity treating the other as the beneficiary Examples of these are a partner vis-à-vis another partner and an employer vis- à-vis employee. An employee who comes into possession of business or trade secrets or confidential information relating to the employer in the course of his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on the request of the employer or official superior or the head of a department, an employee furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental head is expected to hold such personal information in confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the employee's conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial to the employer. 41. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to the students who participate in an examination, as a Government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship” are used in Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act in its normal and well- recognised 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 -9- 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 shareholder, 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 employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer books, that come into the custody of the examining body.” 43. This Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay [CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 : 6 SCEC 25] held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act does not apply to beneficiaries regarding whom the fiduciary holds information. In other words, information available with the public authority relating to beneficiaries cannot be withheld from or denied to the beneficiaries themselves. A fiduciary would, ergo, be duty-bound to make thorough disclosure of all relevant facts of all transactions between them in a fiduciary relationship to the beneficiary. In the facts of the said case, this Court had to consider whether an examining body, the Central Board of Secondary Education, held information in the form of evaluated answer-books of the examinees in fiduciary capacity. Answering in the negative, it was nevertheless observed that even if the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, it will be duty- bound to disclose the evaluated answer-books to the examinee and at the same time, they owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer-books to -10- anyone else, that is, any third party. This observation is of significant importance as it recognises that Section 8(1)(j), and as noticed below — Section 11, encapsulates another right, that is, the right to protect privacy and confidentiality by barring the furnishing of information to third parties except when the public interest as prescribed so requires. In this way, the RTI Act complements both the right to information and the right to privacy and confidentiality. Further, it moderates and regulates the conflict between the two rights by applying the test of larger public interest or comparative examination of public interest in disclosure of information with possible harm and injury to the protected interests.” 16. While explaining the scope and ambit of the expression "public interest" as envisaged under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court further held: “91. Public interest in access to information refers to something that is in the interest of the public welfare to know. Public welfare is widely different from what is of interest to the public. “Something which is of interest to the public” and “something which is in the public interest” are two separate and different parameters. For example, the public may be interested in private matters with which the public may have no concern and pressing need to know. However, such interest of the public in private matters would repudiate and directly traverse the protection of privacy. The object and purpose behind the specific exemption vide clause (j) to Section 8(1) is to protect and shield oneself from unwarranted access to personal information and to protect facets like reputation, honour, etc. associated with the right to -11- privacy. Similarly, there is a public interest in the maintenance of confidentiality in the case of private individuals and even Government, an aspect we have already discussed. 92. The public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to a particular information and the person. ……………. x x x 94. Public interest has no relationship and is not connected with the number of individuals adversely affected by the disclosure which may be small and insignificant in comparison to the substantial number of individuals wanting disclosure. It will vary according to the information sought and all circumstances of the case that bear upon the public interest in maintaining the exemptions and those in disclosing the information must be accounted for to judge the right balance. Public interest is not immutable and even time-gap may make a significant difference. The type and likelihood of harm to the public interest behind the exemption and public interest in disclosure would matter. The delicate balance requires identification of public interest behind each exemption and then cumulatively weighing the public interest in accepting or maintaining the exemption(s) to deny information in a particular case against the public interest in disclosure in that particular case. Further, under Section 11(1), reference is made to the “possible” harm and injury to the third party which will also have to be factored in when determining disclosure of -12- confidential information relating to the third parties x x x x x x x x x 305. Clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 requires the Information Officer to weigh the “public interest” in disclosure against the privacy harm. The disclosure of different documents in different circumstances will give rise to unique “public interest” factors in favour of disclosure. However, a few broad principles may be laid out as to how the phrase “public interest” is to be understood. Where factors fall within this interpretation “public interest” so interpreted, they are factors that weigh in favour of disclosure. The principles are as follows: 305.1. Public interest is not limited to information which directly promotes the democratic accountability of elected officials. 305.2. There exists public interest in the disclosure of information where the information sought informs political debate, is educational or intellectual or serves artistic purposes. 305.3. Where the information sought will promote public debate on political, economic or social issues, there exists a public interest in disclosure. 305.4. Judges and Information Officers should not pass a value judgment on whether the speech in question furthers their own conception of societal good or interest for it to satisfy the test of public interest. 305.5. As an indicative list, information concerning the accountability of officials, public expenditure, the performance of public duties, the handling of complaints, the existence of any wrongdoing by a public official, inefficiency in public administration and unfairness in public administration all possess public interest value, their relative strength to be determined on a case by case basis. -13- 305.6. Where the disclosure of information would promote the aims and objectives of the RTI Act, there exists a “public interest” in disclosing such information. 305.7. The object and purpose of the RTI Act is the fulfilment of the positive obligation on the State to provide access to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the existence of the restrictions on the disclosure of information does not restrict the meaning of “public interest” under the Act.” 17. The object of the Act of 2005 is to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of every public authority. A public authority cannot deny information merely by making a reference to the exemption clauses without establishing the factual foundation for their applicability. 18. In the present case, the State Information Commission has examined the nature of the information sought. The Commission has not directed disclosure of any information expressly prohibited by the Act of 2005. The information sought by respondent No. 2 can be furnished by the petitioner/Public Service Commission after appropriately concealing the names, designations or identities of the members of the Committee and authorities participated in proceedings, as specifically observed by the State Information Commission in the impugned order. The impugned order reflects a proper appreciation of the relevant statutory provisions and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. 19. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State Information Commission has rightly directed -14- disclosure of the information sought by respondent No.2. The petitioner has failed to make out any case that the information falls within the exemptions contemplated under Sections 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005. 20. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the State Information Commission is affirmed. Sd/----/-/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen