BharatNotes UPSC withholds board member identities to protect evaluator safety and prevent coaching manipulation; the Delhi High Court upheld this under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
UPSC does not disclose the names of interview board members to candidates before or after the interview as a matter of deliberate policy, and this stance has been upheld by the Delhi High Court in a specific case.
The Legal Case: UPSC v. Dr. Mahesh Mangalat (Delhi High Court, 2015)
In this case, Dr. Mahesh Mangalat filed an RTI application seeking the names, designations, and addresses of UPSC selection committee members who had evaluated him. The Central Information Commission (CIC) initially directed UPSC to disclose this information. UPSC challenged the CIC order before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court partially allowed UPSC's petition, setting aside the CIC's disclosure directive. The court relied on multiple provisions of the RTI Act, 2005:
Section 8(1)(g) — Physical Safety Exemption:
The RTI Act, Section 8(1)(g) reads:
"Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes" is exempt from disclosure.
The court held that disclosing the names, addresses, and qualifications of UPSC selection committee members would endanger the life and physical safety of those experts, given the possibility of approaches by unsuccessful candidates or their associates.
Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship Exemption: The court also found that a fiduciary relationship exists between UPSC (the examining authority) and its board members (the examiners), who join the process with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Disclosure would breach this fiduciary trust.
Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information Exemption: Personal details of private individuals (even when serving on government panels) enjoy protection unless their disclosure serves a demonstrable public interest that outweighs the individual's privacy.
What Information IS Available to Candidates
While board member names are confidential, certain structural information is available:
| Information | Available? |
|---|---|
| Interview date | Yes — in e-Summon letter |
| Session (forenoon/afternoon) | Yes — in e-Summon letter |
| Board number (slip given on the day) | Yes — on the day of interview |
| Names of board members | No — permanently withheld |
| Board member profiles/qualifications | No |
| Post-interview: marks awarded by each member | No — only consolidated mark disclosed |
The "Waiting Area Culture"
Despite UPSC's policy, candidates sitting in the waiting area at Dholpur House have developed an informal information-sharing culture. Candidates who have completed their interview sometimes return briefly to the waiting area before being escorted out, and word spreads about which board is running in which room — not member names, but broad descriptors ("the board in Room 3 asked a lot on science," "the chairperson in Room 5 was very friendly"). UPSC does not facilitate this exchange and makes no representation that it is accurate.
Why UPSC's Position Is Actually Fair to Candidates
The non-disclosure policy, while frustrating to some candidates, has a structural fairness logic that is often underappreciated:
Prevents coaching institutes from gaming the system. If board member identities were known, institutes would run background research on each member — their published papers, known views, past decisions — and coach candidates to tailor answers to individual board members' known preferences. This would advantage those with access to expensive coaching over those preparing independently.
Creates a level playing field across socioeconomic backgrounds. A candidate from a small town cannot access the same coaching infrastructure as a candidate in Delhi. If board identities were public, the coaching advantage would compound further.
Protects the integrity of the assessment. The board must feel free to probe, challenge, and evaluate without concern that their individual marks or questions will be publicly attributed to them and scrutinised post-facto.
Consistent with the assessment goal. The Personality Test assesses how a candidate handles uncertainty and unfamiliar interlocutors — exactly the conditions of real administrative life. A civil servant posted to an unfamiliar district does not know in advance the temperament of the Superintendent of Police or the local MLA. The "unknown board" format is, in this sense, a feature.
UPSC's Position on Recording Proposals
Among the transparency reforms debated in recent years, some civil society voices have called for video recording of interviews and public release of recordings. UPSC has not adopted this proposal. Its consistent position is that the existing safeguards — randomisation, category-blind evaluation, DAF-only disclosure to boards, and moderation — are sufficient to ensure fairness without compromising evaluator integrity.
