Sikkim HC Directs SPSC to Disclose Mains Merit List Under RTI, Bars Respondent from Sharing Data on Social Media

The High Court of Sikkim disposed of SPSC's writ petition after the Commission agreed to furnish the consolidated merit list, subject to a social media restriction on the RTI applicant.

The High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok, on 15 May 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) challenging orders of the Sikkim Information Commission that directed disclosure of the consolidated merit list of candidates who appeared in the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, sitting singly, recorded the SPSC's undertaking to furnish the information and simultaneously directed the RTI applicant not to publish the data on any social media platform. The court warned that flouting the undertaking would attract necessary consequences.

The RTI Request and the Chain of Appeals

Respondent No.2, 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). He sought the list of candidates who had cleared the Mains Examination for recruitment to the posts of Accounts Officer, Under Secretary, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, along with their roll numbers and marks. He also sought the list of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) who appeared in the same examination, their marks, and their categories of disability.

The SPSC furnished some information by letter dated 25 March 2025 but declined to provide the full list. Pradhan appealed to the First Appellate Authority within the SPSC on 2 April 2025. That authority directed the SPIO to allow inspection of the roll number and marks of only the one candidate who had given written consent for disclosure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The marks of candidates who denied consent were held to be protected under Section 8(1)(j). The First Appellate Authority also noted that the SPSC had already communicated the cut-off marks for the Mains Written Examination as 33%, which Pradhan acknowledged.

Pradhan then appealed to the Sikkim Information Commission (the Second Appellate Authority) on 7 May 2025, arguing that the information concerned a public examination and did not infringe individual privacy, and that no exemption under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act applied. The Commission, by its order dated 17 June 2025 in Appeal No.3/SIC/2025, directed the SPIO to provide the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview/viva-voce, including their marks, within fifteen days, and to file a compliance report before the Commission on or before 3 July 2025. A further order dated 22 July 2025 followed.

SPSC's Challenge Before the High Court

The SPSC filed WP(C) No.57 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Sikkim, seeking to quash the orders dated 17 June 2025 and 22 July 2025. The petition contended that the Second Appellate Authority 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), which exempts personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The SPSC also sought a stay of the impugned orders during the pendency of the petition.

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. He argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and was barred under Sections 19(7) and 23 of the RTI Act, which restrict courts from entertaining suits or applications in respect of orders made under the Act. He also raised a separate grievance: at the hearing before the First Appellate Authority on 16 April 2025, he had sought advance permission for a family member to accompany him given his 55% hearing impairment. The First Appellate Authority refused on the ground that his impairment was only 55%, compelling him to participate alone. He prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with exemplary costs and that the SPSC be directed to comply immediately with the Information Commission's orders.

How the Bench Resolved the Dispute

Senior Advocate Aarohi Bhalla, appearing for the SPSC through video conference along with Advocate Bhusan Nepal, submitted before the court that he had advised the SPSC to comply with the Second Appellate Authority's order dated 17 June 2025 given the particular facts of the matter. He stated that the SPSC was agreeable to providing the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview/viva-voce, subject to the condition that Respondent No.2 would not publish the information on any social media platform.

Advocate Anirudh Gupta, appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2, stated that his client had no objection to that condition and undertook before the court that the information would not be placed on any social media platform.

On the separate grievance about the hearing impairment, Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai held that since the Second Appellate Authority had already extended substantive relief to Respondent No.2 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's Warning on Social Media

The court directed the SPIO of the SPSC to furnish the relevant information to Respondent No.2. It recorded the undertaking given by Respondent No.2 that he would not publish the information on any social media platform. The court added that “necessary steps will follow if the orders of this Court are flouted” by Respondent No.2 despite his undertaking. The court did not elaborate on the specific consequences but left the warning on record as part of the operative directions.

The condition attached to the disclosure — restricting the RTI applicant from circulating the information on social media — arose from the SPSC's own submission and was accepted by Respondent No.2 before the court. The court's direction thus gave effect to a consensual arrangement rather than imposing an independent restriction on RTI-obtained information.

Outcome

The writ petition WP(C) No.57 of 2025 was disposed of on 15 May 2026. The SPIO of the SPSC was directed to furnish the consolidated merit list of all candidates who appeared in the interview/viva-voce for the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022, along with their marks, to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is bound by his undertaking before the court not to publish the information on any social media platform. All pending applications were also disposed of. The judgment was approved for reporting.