9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether answer scripts written by an examinee in a public examination are comprehended within the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act. 2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, whether an examinee is entitled to access these answer scripts, or if access can be withheld by the public authority on any valid ground traceable in the RTI Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of 'Information' under the RTI Act: The court held that an assessed/evaluated answer script of an examinee writing a public examination conducted by public bodies like the WBBSE, CBSE, or universities does come within the purview of 'information' as defined in the RTI Act. The court emphasized that there is no justifiable reason to construe Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in a constricted sense. An assessed/evaluated answer script is a material, document, paper, and record, and also an opinion, which is comprehended within the definition of 'information'. The court referenced authoritative pronouncements from the Apex Court, including the decisions in Raj Narain, S.P. Gupta, and others, which established that the right to information is part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. Entitlement to Access Answer Scripts: The court addressed the argument that only information enumerated in Section 4 of the RTI Act is required to be published and thus only such information needs to be furnished. The court disagreed, stating that the RTI Act does not contemplate that information as defined in Section 2(f) is confined to those mentioned in Section 4. The court emphasized the overriding effect of the RTI Act, which means that a subordinate legislation framed by the WBBSE that denies inspection of answer scripts cannot negate a right flowing from the RTI Act. The court also rejected the argument that answer scripts are not within the public domain and would not serve any public interest. It was held that each step in a process of examination conducted by the University, WBBSE, and CBSE is in the public domain. The court stated that the answer scripts become the property of the public authority once handed over by the examinee, and thus information in respect thereof cannot be denied. The court further elaborated that the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. The court held that disclosure of assessed/evaluated answer scripts would improve the quality of assessment/evaluation and make examiners more accountable. The court acknowledged the potential practical difficulties but emphasized that the larger public interest in transparency and fairness outweighs these concerns. The court also addressed the argument regarding the potential floodgate of applications, stating that such an argument cannot be used to deny a valuable right of a citizen. The court held that the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner that leans towards dissemination of information rather than withholding it. Conclusion: The court concluded that the judgment of the learned single judge did not call for interference. The writ appeal of the University and the writ petitions filed by the WBBSE were dismissed, and the connected writ petition filed by the father of the examinee was allowed. The court directed that inspection of the answer scripts be granted to the concerned examinees within four weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The court also set aside the order of the CBSE dated 12-7-2008 and directed the CBSE to grant inspection of the answer scripts within four weeks. However, the prayer for reevaluation of the scripts was refused, and the examinees were advised to seek relief in appropriate proceedings if initiated after accessing the assessed/examined answer scripts.
|
