Education: Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act: The Supreme Court has delivered a detailed judgment running into 23 printed pages. It is a landmark decision. Aditya Bandopadhyay had appeared for the Secondary School Examination, 2008 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short ‘CBSE’ or the ‘Appellant’). When he got the mark-sheet he was disappointed with his marks. He thought that he had done well in the examination but his answer-books were not properly evaluated and that improper evaluation had resulted in low marks. Therefore, he made an application for inspection and re-evaluation of his answer-books. CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12-7-2011, holding that it was exempt u/s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since CBSE shared fiduciary relationship with its evaluators and maintains confidentiality of both manner and method of evaluation and further the Examination By-laws of the Board provided that no candidate shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his answer-book(s) or disclosure or inspection of answer-book(s) or other documents and further that the larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of such information sought.
The appellant filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court heard and disposed of the said writ petition along with the connected writ petitions (relied by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and others) by a common judgment dated 5-2-2009. The High Court held that the evaluated answerbooks of an examinee writing a public examination conducted by statutory bodies like CBSE or any University or Board of Secondary Education, being a ‘document, manuscript record, and opinion’ fell within the definition of ‘information’ as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It held that the provisions of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner which would lead towards dissemination of information rather than withholding the same; and in view of the right to information, the examining bodies were bound to provide inspection of evaluated answer books of the examinees.
Consequently, it directed CBSE to grant inspection of the answer books to the examinees who sought information. The High Court however rejected the prayer made by the examinees for re-evaluation of the answer-books, as that was not a relief that was available under RTI Act. The RTI Act only provided a right to access information, but not for any consequential reliefs.
On the above decision, CBSE came to the Supreme Court contending that they were holding the ‘information’ (in this case, the evaluated answer-books) in a fiduciary relationship and therefore exempted u/s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Every examinee has the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted u/s.8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rule/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations.
The SC then extensively discussed what is the meaning of ‘fiduciary relationship’ as in section 8(1)(e), dictionary meaning and as stated in number of Indian and US Court’s decisions and concluded: “We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption u/s.8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption u/s.8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.”
The SC then also extensively and beautifully analysed the provisions of the RTI Act and its real purport, scope and meaning and concluded: “In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer-books is affirmed, subject to the clarification regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which ‘information’ should be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
[The above decision was delivered on 9-8-2011: Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. It is reported in number of law magazines/journals, etc. including at 2011(8) SCALE 645]
[As it is one of the finest decisions to read and understand the real scope of the RTI Act, photo copy of the full decision will be made available both at BCAS and PCGT]
[This decision is followed by another very interesting, decision in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. delivered on 2-9-2011 by the same two judges. It will be reported next month.]
