Sikkim HC Directs SPSC to Disclose Interview Merit List Under RTI, Bars Social Media Upload

The Sikkim High Court disposed of a writ petition by the Sikkim Public Service Commission after it agreed to furnish a consolidated interview merit list to an RTI applicant, subject to a social media restriction.

The Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok, seeking to quash two orders of the Sikkim Information Commission that directed it to disclose a consolidated merit list of candidates who appeared in the interview round of the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, sitting singly, disposed of the petition on 15 May 2026 after the SPSC, on legal advice, agreed to comply with the Information Commission's directions. The Court directed that the information, once furnished, shall not be posted on any social media platform by the RTI applicant, and warned that flouting this condition would invite consequences.

The RTI Request and the Examination at Issue

Respondent No.2, Mr. Ashif Pradhan, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 18 February 2025 before the SPSC's State Public Information Officer (SPIO). The information sought related to the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, which was held for recruitment to the posts of Accounts Officer, Under Secretary, and Deputy Superintendent of Police. Mr. Pradhan asked for the list of candidates who cleared the Mains Examination along with their roll numbers and marks. He also sought the list of candidates who were Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in the same examination, their marks, and their categories of disability.

The SPSC, by letter dated 25 March 2025, furnished only part of the information. It declined to provide the rest, relying on the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

The Appellate Route Before the High Court Petition

Mr. Pradhan, dissatisfied with the partial disclosure, appealed to the First Appellate Authority within the SPSC on 2 April 2025. The First Appellate Authority directed the SPSC to allow Mr. Pradhan inspection of the roll number and marks of the one candidate who had given written consent for disclosure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. It held that the marks of candidates who had denied consent under Section 11(1) would not be disclosed, in keeping with Section 8(1)(j). The First Appellate Authority also recorded that the SPSC had already informed Mr. Pradhan that the cut-off marks for the Mains Written Examination was 33%, which Mr. Pradhan acknowledged.

Mr. Pradhan then appealed to the Second Appellate Authority, the Sikkim Information Commission, on 7 May 2025. His ground was that the information pertained to a public examination and did not infringe on any individual's privacy, and that it did not fall within the exemptions under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act.

The Sikkim Information Commission, by its order dated 17 June 2025 in Appeal No.3/SIC/2025, directed the SPSC's SPIO to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview or viva-voce, including their marks, within fifteen days of the order, and to file a compliance report before the Commission on or before 3 July 2025. The Commission's order also required the SPSC to consider Mr. Pradhan's prayer relating to his disability at the time of hearing. A further order dated 22 July 2025 followed.

The SPSC challenged both orders before the High Court, contending that the Sikkim Information Commission had acted without jurisdiction and contrary to the RTI Act, and that the SPIO was justified in withholding the information under Section 8(1)(j).

The Disability Grievance Raised by the RTI Applicant

Mr. Pradhan, in his Counter-Affidavit, raised a separate grievance. He stated that he has a hearing impairment and had, in advance of the First Appellate Authority hearing on 16 April 2025, sought permission for a family member to accompany him so that he could participate effectively. The First Appellate Authority rejected this request on the ground that Mr. Pradhan was only 55% hearing impaired, and he was compelled to attend the hearing alone without adequate assistance.

Mr. Pradhan also contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and was barred under Sections 19(7) and 23 of the RTI Act, and prayed for its dismissal with exemplary costs, along with a direction to the SPSC to immediately comply with the Information Commission's orders.

How the Bench Reasoned

Senior Advocate Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, appearing through video conference for the SPSC, submitted that after considering the facts and circumstances, he had advised the SPSC to comply with the Second Appellate Authority's order dated 17 June 2025. The SPSC accordingly undertook before the Court to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview or viva-voce, along with their marks, subject to the condition that Mr. Pradhan would not upload the information on any social media platform.

Counsel for Mr. Pradhan stated that there was no objection to this, and that Mr. Pradhan undertook not to post the information on any social media platform. Counsel did, however, press the grievance about the hearing impairment and the denial of a family member's assistance at the First Appellate Authority stage.

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai accepted the undertakings and directed the SPIO to furnish the relevant information. On the disability grievance, the Court held that since the Second Appellate Authority had already extended substantive relief to Mr. Pradhan in its order dated 17 June 2025, the issue of the First Appellate Authority's refusal to allow a family member to accompany him was “tangential to the substantive relief claimed” and required no further consideration.

The Court also made clear that if Mr. Pradhan flouted his undertaking and posted the information on social media, “necessary steps will follow.”

Outcome

The High Court directed the SPIO of the SPSC to furnish the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview or viva-voce of the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, along with their marks, to Mr. Ashif Pradhan. Mr. Pradhan is bound by his undertaking before the Court not to post the information on any social media platform. The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of on 15 May 2026. The judgment is approved for reporting.