Central Board of Secondary Education & Others V/s. Aditya
Bandopadhya &
Others Civil Appeal No. 6454
of 2011, Decided on 9-08-2011
A student named Aditya
Bandopadhyay took the exam of CBSE Board. 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 sheets were not properly valued and that improper valuation had resulted
in low marks. Therefore he made an application for inspection and re-valuation
of his answer books. CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12-07-2008 and
stated following reasons for the rejections.
(i)
The information sought was exempted under Section
8(1)(e) of RTI Act since CBSE shared fiduciary relationship with its evaluators
and maintain confidentiality of both manner and method of evaluation.
(ii)
The Examinations Bye-laws of the Board provided that no
candidate shall claim or is entitled to re-valuation of his answers or
disclosure or inspection of answer book(s) or other documents.
(iii)
The larger does not warrant the disclosure of such
information sought.
(iv)
The Central Information Commission, by its order dated 23-04-2007
in appeal no. ICPB/A-3/CIC/2006 dated 10-02-2006 had ruled out such
disclosure.”
Feeling aggrieved the respondent
filed Writ Petition No. 18189(W)/2008 before the Calcutta High Court and sought
the following reliefs
(a) For
a declaration that the action of CBSE in excluding the provision of
re-valuation of answer sheets, in regard to the examinations held by it was
illegal, unreasonable and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of
India
(b) For a
direction to CBSE to appoint an independent examiner for re-valuating his
answer books and issue a fresh marks card on the basis of re-valuation.
(c) For
a direction to CBSE to produce his answer books in regard to the 2008 Secondary
School Examination so that they could be properly reviewed and fresh marks card
can be issued with re-valuation marks
(d) For
quashing the communication of CBSE dated 12-07-2008 and for a direction to
produce the answer books into court for inspection by the first respondent. The
respondent contended that section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005
relied upon by CBSE was not applicable and relied upon the provisions of the
RTI Act to claim compensation.
CBSE submitted that 12 to 13 lakhs candidates from about
9000 affiliated schools across the country appear in class X and class XII
examinations conducted by it and this generates as many as 60 to 65 lakhs of
answer books that as per Examination Bye-law No.62, it maintains the answer
books only for a period of three months after which they are disposed of. It was
submitted that if candidates were to be permitted to seek re-evaluation of
answer books or inspection thereof, it will create confusion and chaos, subjecting
its elaborate system of examinations to delay and disarray. It was stated that
apart from class X and class XII examinations, CBSE also conducts several other
examinations (including the All India Pre-Medical Test, All India Engineering
Entrance Examination and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya’s Selection Test). If CBSE
was required to re-evaluate the answer-books or grant inspection of
answer-books or grant certified copies thereof, it would interfere with its
effective and efficient functioning, and will also require huge additional
staff and infrastructure. It was submitted that the entire examination system
and evaluation by CBSE is done in a scientific and systemic manner designed to
ensure and safeguard the high academic standards and at each level utmost care
was taken to achieve the object of excellence, keeping in view the interests of
the students.
A Division Bench of the High Court heard and disposed the
said writ petition along with the connected writ petitions (relied byWest
Bengal Board of Secondary Education and others) by a common judgment dated
5-02-2009. The High Court held that the evaluated answer books 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 to the examinees. Consequently
it directed CBSE to grant inspection of the answer books to the examinee
who sought information. The High Court however rejected the prayer made by the
examinee for re-valuation of the answer sheets as that was not a relief that
was available under RTI Act. RTI Act only provided a right to access
information but not for any consequential reliefs. Feeling aggrieved by the
direction to grant inspection, CBSE has filed this appeal by special leave.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court and
decided that the Answer Books fall in the definition of Information and thus it
should be disclosed against the request by the applicant further emphasizing
that Board does not have any fiduciary relationship with the evaluator of
answer books.
The right to information is a cherished right. Information
and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of
responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and
accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all
efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause
(b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability
in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in
regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in
section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to
other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity
and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.).
Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under
RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency
and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The
Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct
the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility
and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of
oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The
nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities
spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants
instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the
RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead
to employees of a public authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at
the cost of their normal and regular duties.
No comments:
Post a Comment