Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed Haryana Police authorities to provide an unsuccessful candidate with the videography of the Band Skill Test conducted during the recruitment of Bandsmen (Constables), observing that “The right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the information is sought to examine.” Allowing a petition filed by Sunder Lal, Justice Kirti Singh set aside the January 22, 2026, order of the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Haryana, to the extent it denied disclosure of the videography. The authorities have been directed to furnish the information within 30 days. The petitioner, who belongs to the Backward Class-B (BCB) category, had applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement dated Nov 30, 2022. The selection process comprised a Knowledge Test carrying 20 marks, a qualifying Physical Screening Test and a Band Skill Test carrying 60 marks.After qualifying the Knowledge Test and Physical Screening Test, the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process. The final selection list was published in Feb 2024, following which he came to know that Jaibir had been selected against the sole advertised post in the BCB category in the Brass Band.The petitioner subsequently challenged the selection before the high court. During the pendency of that petition, the state placed on record the detailed breakup of marks obtained by the selected candidates. Both the petitioner and Jaibir had secured 13.6 marks in the Knowledge Test, but there was a substantial difference in their Band Skill Test scores. The petition was disposed of as not pressed on August 8, 2025, with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedies in accordance with law.The petitioner then sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including the videography of the Band Skill Test. The SPIO-cum-deputy superintendent of police, Karnal, rejected the request under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, stating that the information pertained to other applicants. The State Information Commission subsequently directed disclosure of the candidates’ marks but declined to provide the videography, citing the absence of material establishing malice or prima facie subversion of the assessment process. Before the high court, the petitioner’s counsel, Animesh Sharma, argued that the videography was not private material but the contemporaneous record of a public recruitment examination. It was submitted that an applicant could not be required to establish wrongdoing before being allowed to access information sought to examine the fairness of the selection.Opposing the petition, the state counsel, Saumya Ahluwalia, senior DAG, Haryana, submitted that the petitioner had secured 38.6 marks overall, comprising 13.6 in the Knowledge Test, three for the NCC Certificate and 22 in the Band Skill Test. Jaibir had secured 53.6 marks, including 13.6 in the Knowledge Test and 40 in the Band Skill Test. The state also pointed out that the petitioner had applied for the Bass Drum, whereas Jaibir had applied for the Bb Clarinet.The HC observed that the Band Skill Test was an integral component of recruitment and carried 60 out of 100 marks. “The recording sought by the petitioner pertains to the performance of candidates in the said test and constitutes the contemporaneous record of the assessment undertaken by the Selection Board,” it said.Allowing the petition, the HC directed the authorities to provide the videography within 30 days.Observing that the difference in overall merit was substantially attributable to the marks awarded in the Band Skill Test, the Bench said the distinction between the instruments applied for did not, by itself, answer whether the recording was exempt from disclosure.“The limited issue is whether the petitioner can be denied access to the contemporaneous record of a test conducted as part of a public recruitment process,” the HC observed.It further held that the recording formed part of the assessment record maintained by a public authority and that the presence of other candidates in it could not, by itself, justify withholding the entire information.“The mere fact that the recording also contains the performance of other candidates would not, by itself, justify withholding the entire information from an unsuccessful candidate who had participated in the same recruitment process and seeks access to the record having a direct bearing on the selection,” the Bench observed.Allowing the petition, the HC directed the authorities to provide the videography within 30 days.
