Back
Can Evaluation Records Be Withheld? CIC Tells to Justify Denial
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi of the has directed the to file a detailed written statement justifying the denial of information sought by an RTI applicant regarding the evaluation process for law semester answer scripts.
The appellant, Rishabh Mishra, had filed an RTI application on , seeking comprehensive details about the evaluation criteria, protocols, and step-by-step procedures adopted for assessing law semester examination answer scripts at 's .
The Information Sought
The 10-point RTI application asked for certified copies of all rules, guidelines, and circulars related to evaluation; model answers, marking schemes, and scoring rubrics; a step-by-step account of the evaluation process including whether multiple levels of checking exist; details of any training sessions for evaluators; and information on moderation or quality control mechanisms. The appellant also sought clarification on whether digital evaluation has been adopted and requested that any informal practices be disclosed if formal documents did not exist.
A Vague Reply and a Grievance
The CPIO initially responded on , stating that the matter had been forwarded to the and that the appellant could contact that office directly. Aggrieved by what he termed a vague response, Mishra filed a first appeal on . The on , directed the Joint Registrar to provide the relevant disclosable information within two weeks.
On , the CPIO furnished a point-wise reply, including a notice dated , and explained that answer scripts are evaluated according to the marking scheme and instructions in the question paper, with the Coordinator or Head Examiner issuing oral instructions to maintain uniformity. However, the CPIO maintained that several queries sought clarifications not covered under , and that the evaluation process was confidential and held in a .
The Commission's Analysis
The CIC observed that while Section 2(f) contemplates disclosure of existing material, it does not require the CPIO to create information, give opinions, or interpret records. However, this principle cannot be extended to deny access to such as marking schemes, written instructions, circulars, or guidelines relating to the evaluation procedure.
Critically, the Commission rejected the CPIO's
.
"The mere description of information as 'confidential' does not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for denial under the
,"
the CIC stated, emphasizing that any denial must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Act.
Regarding the claim of under , the Commission noted that this exemption cannot be invoked mechanically. The public authority must establish the existence of such a relationship with respect to the particular information sought and demonstrate how the statutory exemption applies.
Key Observations
The CIC highlighted in paragraph 9 of its order:
"Where the information sought consists of
maintained by the public authority, such as prescribed marking schemes, written instructions issued to examiners, notices, circulars, guidelines, records of decisions, or other documents relating to the evaluation procedure, the same constitute information within the meaning of Section 2(f), subject to any specific exemption under
."
Further, the Commission underscored:
"A general assertion of confidentiality or
cannot substitute the statutory requirement of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption."
The Decision
The CIC directed the CPIO to file a detailed, signed written statement before the Commission within two weeks, specifically identifying each item of information denied or withheld, the reason for such denial, and the precise provision of the under which the exemption is claimed. Where reliance is placed on , the CPIO must explain the nature of the alleged and how the information falls within that exemption. The CPIO must also clarify whether any can be disclosed under .
With these observations and directions, the second appeal was disposed of, leaving the ball firmly in 's court to justify its withholding of exam evaluation records.
