Back
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
Pritam Rooj
versus
University of Calcutta and Ors.
W.P. No. 22176 of 2007
Decided on : 28 -3 -2008.
The Calcutta High Court held that an examinee has a right to access his evaluated answer script under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Court reasoned that the RTI Act's definition of "information" is broad enough to include answer scripts, and that the Act's exemptions from disclosure do not apply to answer scripts. The Court also rejected the University's argument that the disclosure of answer scripts would violate the privacy of the examiners, finding that the University could redact the examiners' identities from the answer scripts before disclosing them to the examinees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an examinee, sought to obtain his evaluated answer script from the University under the RTI Act. The University rejected the petitioner's request, arguing that answer scripts were not covered by the RTI Act and that their disclosure would violate the privacy of the examiners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner had a right to access his evaluated answer script under the RTI Act. The Court found that the RTI Act's definition of "information" was broad enough to include answer scripts, and that the Act's exemptions from disclosure did not apply to answer scripts. The Court also rejected the University's argument that the disclosure of answer scripts would violate the privacy of the examiners, finding that the University could redact the examiners' identities from the answer scripts before disclosing them to the examinees.
Issues: 1. Whether an examinee has a right to access his evaluated answer script under the RTI Act? 2. Whether the disclosure of answer scripts would violate the privacy of the examiners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the RTI Act's definition of "information" is broad enough to include answer scripts. The Court reasoned that the RTI Act's definition of "information" includes "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." The Court found that answer scripts fell within this definition, as they were "material" in the form of "documents" that were held by a "public authority." 2. The Court held that the RTI Act's exemptions from disclosure did not apply to answer scripts. The Court considered the RTI Act's exemptions for information that is "exempted under any other law for the time being in force," information that "would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes," and information that "would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders." The Court found that none of these exemptions applied to answer scripts. 3. The Court rejected the University's argument that the disclosure of answer scripts would violate the privacy of the examiners. The Court found that the University could redact the examiners' identities from the answer scripts before disclosing them to the examinees. The Court reasoned that this would protect the examiners' privacy while still allowing the examinees to access their answer scripts.
Final Decision: The Court held that the petitioner had a right to access his evaluated answer script under the RTI Act. The Court ordered the University to provide the petitioner with his answer script within two weeks.
2. The petitioner appears to be a reasonably meritorious student. He obtained 91.6 per cent in his Madhyamik (Class X) Examinations and 80.8 per cent in his Higher Secondary (Class XII) Examinations. He enrolled for the mathematics honours course of the Calcutta University in Presidency College - where admission itself is an acknowledgment of merit. In 2006, the petitioner took his Part I Bachelor's degree examinations and secured a somewhat modest 52 per cent score. In the following year he appeared for his Part II Examinations and secured 208 marks out of a maximum of 400. The petitioner was particularly aggrieved by his being awarded 28 out of 100 in the fifth paper.
3. The petitioner applied for a post publication scrutiny, seeking re-evaluation of his answerscripts in the fifth and sixth papers in accordance with the rules prescribed by the University. On view, the marks awarded to him in the fifth paper increased by four and a fresh, corrected mark sheet was issued to him.
4. The petitioner claims that he was called for an interview for the integrated Ph.D. programme in mathematics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore Centre after clearing the written examination therefor. He claims that his poor marks in the second leg of his Bachelor's course led to his exclusion from the final list. The petitioner avers that the poor marks stand in the way of his obtaining admission for the master's programme in any of the better universities. The petitioner cleared the written examination for the integrated doctoral programme in mathematical sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and following the interview, was placed eighth on the merit list. The petitioner's provisional application fell through as he failed to obtain a first class in his Bachelor's course.
5. On August 14, 2007 the petitioner made a request to obtain his University answerscript in appropriate format to the State Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Such officer rejected the application by a writing of September 17, 2007 which is the subject matter of the challenge in the present proceedings. The said officer's cryptic rejection runs as follows :
"Re. :- Your Application Dt. 14-8-2007 Under R. T. I. Act, 2005.
Dear Sir,
In response to your above application I am to inform you that it has been decided that henceforth no inspection of any answer script of any examination conducted by the University shall be allowed to any applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Thus we cannot entertain your application and the same is rejected.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
State Public Information Officer And Registrar."
6. The letter appears to be on a printed format where there is a blank left for the date at the top; there is a space left for the examinee's name and address being inserted; an, the date of the application is also left open to be filled up. The officer has used his pen to fill up the date of the letter, the name and address of the examine, the date of the application and has inserted the word "been" as there is an obvious mistake in the printed form. The officer acknowledged the receipt of an application under the said Act but did not deal with the application in the manner provided by the said Act and it is such action and the stereo typed decision evident from the letter of rejection that has prompted the writ petition to be entertained rather than requiring the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy ordinarily availa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
