In a short but pointed hearing at the Karnataka High Court, Justice Suraj Govindaraj on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by a Mysuru-based RTI activist who sought the answer script of a candidate selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC). The court made it clear that the Right to Information Act cannot be stretched to allow “fishing inquiries” into private exam records.
Background
The petitioner, Intak Raju N, who heads an RTI and human rights association in Mysuru, had approached the court after the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority, and later the Karnataka Information Commission refused to share the answer script of a candidate who cleared an Excise Department examination.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
According to his counsel, the activist believed transparency demanded disclosure because the selected candidate had already been appointed. But the authorities consistently rejected the request, prompting him to file a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition sought to quash several orders issued between December 2024 and April 2025.
Court’s Observations
Justice Govindaraj, after hearing both sides, appeared unconvinced right from the start. At one point, while reviewing the record, the judge remarked that the petitioner wasn’t even a participant in the exam.
“The bench observed, ‘Merely calling oneself an RTI activist does not create a personal grievance, nor does it justify seeking someone else’s answer script,’” reflecting sharp disapproval of the petitioner’s reasoning.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The court emphasised that the RTI Act protects individual exam scripts unless the requester demonstrates a direct connection or personal stake. Here, there was none. The judge noted that the petitioner seemed to be pursuing information out of curiosity rather than accountability.
Decision
Finding no grounds to interfere with the three earlier decisions-by the PIO, the appellate authority, and the Information Commission-the High Court dismissed the writ petition outright.
In its brief order, the court concluded that the petitioner had no legal right to demand another candidate’s answer script and that the authorities acted correctly in declining the request. With that, the matter ended.
Case Title: Intak Raju N vs Karnataka Information Commission & Others
Case No.: WP No. 26292 of 2025
Case Type: Writ Petition (General Miscellaneous – RTI)
Decision Date: 12 November 2025
