UPSC v. Angesh Kumar — RTI Wiki Citizen Guide 2026
Quick Reply: UPSC Civil Services marks, scaling and cut-off records cannot be ordered disclosed “mechanically”, but the Court expressly kept the door open where a public-interest case is made out. The limit comes from the Act's Preamble read into Sections 3 and 6, not from a Section 8 exemption.
Supreme Court of India · 2018-02-20 · (2018) 4 SCC 530 · ★ Landmark
UPSC's scaling and raw-score methodology and cut-off mechanics are not to be disclosed mechanically. This is a public-interest balance under the Act's Preamble, not a Section 8 exemption.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2018-02-20 |
| Citation | (2018) 4 SCC 530 |
| Bench | Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit |
| Petitioner | Union Public Service Commission |
| Respondent | Angesh Kumar & Ors. |
| RTI Act sections | §3, §6 |
| Outcome | UPSC's appeals allowed, High Court's disclosure order set aside, writ petitions dismissed |
Outcome
The UPSC's appeals were allowed. The High Court's order directing disclosure was set aside and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Court added that this would not debar the writ petitioners from making out a case on the parameters it had set and approaching the appropriate forum.
Ratio decidendi
Reading the third recital of the Preamble into Sections 3 and 6, information about marks in the Civil Services Examination cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically: the right to information must be balanced against the efficient working of Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information. That is a balance the Court located de hors Sections 8, 9 and 11. Where public interest requires disclosure in a given fact situation, a court remains entitled to order it.
Keywords
UPSC, civil services, scaling
This case cites
- CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (SC 2011)
Similar cases in the corpus
- Recruitment panel anonymity — CIC line (CIC 2014)
- CBSE v. Central Information Commission (HC-DEL 2011)
- §23 civil-courts bar — SC clarification (SC 2017)
- ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (SC 2011)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · bench, outcome, statutory basis and judgment link corrected 11 September 2026 after primary-source verification.