Haryana Police Bandsman Applicant To Get Band-Test Video Without First Proving Irregularity, P&H HC Orders

The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Bandsman (Constable), sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) the videography of the Band Skill Test, which carried 60 of the 100 recruitment marks.

The State Information Commission directed disclosure of candidates’ marks but declined to provide the recording, reasoning that the petitioner had not shown prima facie malice or subversion of the assessment process.

The petitioner challenged that refusal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner had scored 22/60 in the Band Skill Test and the selected candidate had scored 40/60; their overall scores were 38.6 and 53.6, respectively.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act does not justify withholding information merely because it concerns candidates in a public recruitment process; the nature of the information and the applicability of the exemption must be examined in context.

The Court applied the transparency and accountability principles reflected in Union Public Service Commission v. N. Sugathan, LPA No. 797 of 2011, decided 12 December 2011, and Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2011 Ch 143: information directly connected with public selection and assessment cannot be denied simply by characterising it as personal information.

The Court also referred to Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781, concerning transparency and disclosure under the RTI regime.

The Band Skill Test was an integral part of the recruitment and carried the greatest share of the marks; its videography was therefore a contemporaneous record of an assessment by a public authority.

The substantial difference between the petitioner’s and the selected candidate’s Band Skill Test marks showed that the recording had a direct bearing on the final merit.

The fact that the recording also depicted other candidates did not, by itself, justify withholding the entire record from a participant seeking information about the same selection process.

Requiring the petitioner to prove wrongdoing before obtaining the recording would defeat the purpose of seeking information to examine whether the assessment was fair.

The Court did not determine whether the marks awarded were correct; it addressed only access to the recording.

It allowed the petition, set aside the State Information Commission’s order dated 22 January 2026 to the extent it denied disclosure, and directed the authorities to furnish the videography to the petitioner within 30 days.