Applicant: How many class 10 students applied for verification of marks, the amount collected from them and the number of students whose marks were increased by CBSE - CIC: Information is not exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

 1. After the declaration of results recently, how many class 10 students applied for verification of marks and the amount collected from them. Also provide the number of students whose marks were increased.

2. No. of class 10 students who applied for copy of their answer book and the amount collected from them.

3. No. of class 10 students who applied for rechecking of answer book and the amount collected from them.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the transfer of the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act was delayed which resulted in a delayed reply. He further submitted that the reply dated 10.08.2018 was also not proper. He pressed for penalty against the CPIO as well compensation u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; for the detriment caused to him.

The CPIO submitted that the information cannot be disclosed being exempted u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. On a query by the Commission he could not substantiate the applicability of Sec 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. He claimed that from a perusal of the RTI application it could not be understood whether the information sought is in respect of the State of Rajasthan or the entire country. The appellant contended that the information was sought in regard to the entire country and hence the RTI application was filed to the CPIO, Regional Office, Delhi.

Observations:

Reference is drawn to the Apex Court order in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhya & Ors the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 vide its decision dated 09.08.2011 held as follows:

“27. 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 under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; is 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.”

The reply received vide letter dated 10.08.2018 was apt in respect of points no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application. In respect of points no. 1 to 3 of the RTI application, the appellant had only sought the number of students and that is not exempted under any of the exemption clauses u/s 8 of the RTI Act. It was also observed that the CPIO Delhi incorrectly transferred the RTI application to the CPIO Ajmer, who in turn also without any reasonable ground denied the information sought u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The CPIO shall accordingly provide the information in respect of the year 2018.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a revised reply in respect of points no. 1 to 3 of the RTI application to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, after taking assistance from concerned Regional offices u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.

Keeping in view the request of the appellant with regard to penalty, disciplinary action to be imposed on the CPIO and compensation to the appellant, the Commission finds no malafide in the failure to give the proper information. It appears to be more of a lack of understanding of the provisions of the RTI Act and a casual approach in replying. Accordingly, the CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful in providing replies to the RTI applications and refrain from providing incorrect and incomplete replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and (2) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant could not substantiate the detriment caused to him due to not receiving the information so as to attract Sec 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; .

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna  

Information Commissioner

Citation: Surendra Jain v. Central Board of Secondary Education in Decision no.: CIC/CBSED/A/2018/155946/03195, Date of Decision: 19/03/2020