2011 (8) TMI 538 - SC - Indian Laws

RTI - application for inspection and re-evaluation of answer-books - Request rejected - Reasons were information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, Examination Bye-laws of the Board provided that no candidate shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of answer book(s) or other documents, The larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of such information sought, the Central Information Commission, by its order dated 23.4.2007 in appeal no. ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006 dated 10.2.2006 had ruled out such disclosure - Held that - exemption under section 8(1)(e) not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to inspect evaluated answer-books under RTI Act.
2. Impact of previous Supreme Court judgments on the right to inspect answer-books.
3. Fiduciary relationship between examining bodies and examinees.
4. Limitations, conditions, or safeguards on the right to inspect evaluated answer-books.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Inspect Evaluated Answer-Books Under RTI Act:
The Supreme Court examined whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes the right to inspect his evaluated answer books or take certified copies thereof. The Court noted that evaluated answer-books fall within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, citizens have the right to access all information held by or under the control of any public authority, except those excluded or exempted under the Act. The Court emphasized that the RTI Act aims to empower citizens to fight against corruption and hold government bodies accountable by providing access to information.

2. Impact of Previous Supreme Court Judgments on the Right to Inspect Answer-Books:
The Court discussed the relevance of previous judgments, particularly Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh B. Sheth, which upheld the validity of rules barring re-evaluation and inspection of answer-books. The Court clarified that these judgments are based on the specific rules and regulations of examining bodies. However, if there is a superior statutory right under the RTI Act, it will prevail over the rules of the examining bodies. Consequently, the decisions in Maharashtra State Board and similar cases do not interfere with the right of an examinee to seek inspection of answer-books under the RTI Act.

3. Fiduciary Relationship Between Examining Bodies and Examinees:
The Court examined whether examining bodies hold evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship, which would exempt them from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Court defined fiduciary relationships as those involving trust and confidence, such as trustee-beneficiary or guardian-ward relationships. It concluded that examining bodies do not hold evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship with examinees. The relationship between examining bodies and examinees is not one of trust and confidence but rather a statutory function of evaluating and declaring results. Therefore, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) does not apply to evaluated answer-books.

4. Limitations, Conditions, or Safeguards on the Right to Inspect Evaluated Answer-Books:
The Court imposed certain limitations and safeguards on the right to inspect evaluated answer-books. It noted that the names and particulars of examiners, scrutinizers, coordinators, and head examiners should be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act to protect their physical safety. Therefore, if access to evaluated answer-books is granted, the portions containing information about the examiners must be removed or covered. Additionally, the right to access information does not extend beyond the period during which the examining body is required to retain the answer-books. For instance, CBSE is required to maintain answer-books for three months, after which they are disposed of. The Court also clarified that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act does not mandate the preservation of information for twenty years but only applies to information that is required to be preserved for more than twenty years under the rules of the public authority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order directing examining bodies to permit examinees to inspect their answer-books, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions for furnishing information. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.