Advocates Appeared:
For Appearing Parties: Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Bhaskar P. Gupta, Mahabir Singh, P.K. Goswami, Tapash Ray, Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Advs., Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Ajay Sharma, Pijush k. Roy, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Ranajit Chatterjee, Shankar Divate, Anuj Bhandari, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Rakesh Agarwal, Pulkit Agarwal, Payal Dayal, Parthiv Goswami, S. Hariharan, Rajiv Mehta, Surendra Betal, D.M. Nargolkar, L.C. Agarwala, F.I. Choudhary, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Abhijit Sengupta, B.P. Yadav, Sampa Sengupta Ray, Anima Kujur, Ranjan Mukherjee, Azem H. Laskar, Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, Jyoti Mendiratta, Navin Prakash, Sunil Kumar Verma and Rekha Pandey, Advs.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• Case Details: The case involves Civil Appeals filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) against examinees, challenging a High Court order directing CBSE to produce answer sheets for inspection and re-evaluation. The decision was made on 09.08.2011 by Justices R.V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik (!) (!) .
• Respondent's Claim: The first respondent, dissatisfied with his marks in the 2008 Secondary School Examination, sought inspection and re-evaluation of his answer-books. CBSE rejected this request citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act (fiduciary relationship), Examination Bye-laws prohibiting such inspection, lack of larger public interest, and a previous ruling by the Central Information Commission (!) (!) (!) .
• CBSE's Defense: CBSE argued that its Examination Bye-law No. 61 strictly prohibits re-evaluation or disclosure of answer books, allowing only verification of marks (checking for totaling errors). They contended that permitting inspection would cause chaos, delay, and require massive additional resources, as they conduct exams for over 12 lakh candidates with 60-65 lakh answer books. They emphasized their "fool-proof" evaluation system involving blind marking, centralized evaluation, and strict moderation to ensure fairness (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• High Court's Ruling: The Calcutta High Court held that evaluated answer-books constitute "information" under the RTI Act and directed CBSE to allow inspection, though it denied the prayer for re-evaluation as the RTI Act grants a right to access information, not consequential reliefs (!) .
• Legal Questions: The Supreme Court addressed four key questions: whether inspection/certified copies are a right under RTI; the applicability of previous precedents like Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh B. Sheth; whether a fiduciary relationship exists between the examining body and the examinee/examiner; and if so, what limitations apply (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Nature of Answer Books: The Court held that evaluated answer-books are "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act because they contain the "opinion" of the examiner (!) .
• Right to Access vs. Consequential Relief: Section 3 of the RTI Act grants a right to access information, not to seek consequential relief like re-evaluation. Therefore, the question of permitting re-evaluation does not arise under the RTI Act (!) (!) .
• Overriding Effect of RTI Act: Section 22 of the RTI Act gives it an overriding effect over inconsistent laws, rules, or bye-laws. Thus, CBSE's bye-laws barring inspection cannot override the statutory right to information unless the information falls under specific exemptions (!) (!) .
• Fiduciary Relationship Analysis:
  • With Examinee: The Court found no fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee. The examination is a statutory non-commercial function to test knowledge, not a service provided to a consumer (!) (!) (!) .
  • With Examiner: While an examiner acts as a fiduciary for the examining body regarding the answer book during evaluation, the examining body does not hold the evaluated answer book in a fiduciary relationship qua the examiner. Once evaluated, the examiner has no proprietary or confidentiality right over the evaluation (!) .
  • Conclusion on Exemption: Since no fiduciary relationship exists that justifies withholding the information from the beneficiary (the examinee), the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not available to the examining body regarding the answer books (!) .
• Limitations on Disclosure (Examiners' Identity): While the answer book itself must be disclosed, the identity of the examiners, coordinators, and scrutinizers must be protected. Information revealing their names, signatures, or code numbers is exempt under Section 8(1)(g) as its disclosure could endanger their physical safety. Such portions must be severed, covered, or removed under Section 10 of the RTI Act (!) .
• Retention Period: The right to inspection is limited to the period during which the examining body is required to retain the answer books (e.g., three months for CBSE). The RTI Act does not mandate preservation beyond the period specified in the public authority's own rules or regulations (!) (!) .
• Final Holding: The High Court's order directing CBSE to permit inspection of evaluated answer books is affirmed. However, this is subject to the condition that the identity of examiners and other personnel involved in evaluation must be redacted or covered to protect their safety (!) .