Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Shivakant Prasad, J.
Dinesh Sinha & Anr. - Petitioners
Vs.
Council for the India School Certificate Examinations & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 12549 (W) of 2016
Decided On : 01-09-2016
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - PUBLIC AUTHORITY - COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS - NOT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor represented by his father, sought disclosure of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE) regarding his answer scripts in the ICSE examination. The CISCE rejected the request on the ground that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the CISCE was not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, as it was not established or constituted by the Constitution, Parliament, or a State Legislature, nor was it owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.
Issues: Whether the CISCE is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the definition of 'public authority' in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and found that the CISCE did not fall within any of the categories specified therein. It also noted that the CISCE was established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and was not under the control of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the CISCE was not a public authority under the RTI Act and that the petitioner was not entitled to disclosure of the information sought.
Shivakant Prasad, J.
1. The instant writ is directed against an order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner no. 2 for disclosure of information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the respondent authority is not a public authority under the statutory scheme of Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The petitioner no. 2 being a minor is represented by his father as guardian being the petitioner no. 1.
3. Petitioner no. 2 appeared for Class-X examination from the respondent no. 3 School under Council for the India School Certificate Examinations (hereinafter called as the Council) in the year 2016 and became successful on acquiring qualifying marks. However, after receiving the statement of marks and pass certificate on May 6, 2016 the petitioners felt extremely aggrieved as the marks and grade awarded to the petitioner no. 2 was not at all upon the mark and unexpected considering the quality and standard of the petitioner no. 2.
4. On being aggrieved the petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on June 1, 2016 with a prayer for issuance of original answer scripts upon due completion of formalities as per annexure “P-2.”
5. On June 24, 2016 by vide Memorandum No. CISCE/RTI/2016, the respondent no. 2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner no. 2 under the said Act for the reason that the said Council is not a public authority and as such is not covered within the meaning of section 2(h) of the said Act, 2005 vide letter “P-3.”
6. The petitioners contended that the Council has been so constituted as to secure suitable representation of Government of India, State Governments/Union Territories in which there are Schools affiliated to the Council and also the mission of the said Council is ‘The Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations is committed to serving the nation’s children, through high quality educational endeavours, empowering them to contribute towards a humane, just and pluralistic society, promoting introspective living, by creating exciting learning opportunities, with a commitment to excellence.’ Therefore, it is evident that the said Council is discharging a public function in the domain of education having National impact and also owes its allegiance to its State authority as contemplated under the expression ‘State’ enumerated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As such, the Council is covered by the expression public authority as perceived in the said Act, 2005.
7. It is also pointed out that Circular dated April 6, 2016 clearly provides that –
Public examinations conducted by the Council have been recognized under section 2(s) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which states that- public examination means an examination conducted by Council for the India School Certificate Examinations and thus the Council is conducting public examination for which the Council has got all public element amenable to the said Act, 2005 and secondly that Class-X ICSE Examination of the Council has been expressly recognized by the Government of India vide issuance of Memorandum No. 6/9/69-Estt. (D) dated August 3, 1974. As such, the Council is a public authority because various other Boards, Universities, Councils including CBSE do recognize the Council.
8. It is further submitted that the competent Court of law has also recognized the Council as per the website of the Union of India’s list of all recognized Boards as bodies conducting public examinations under Delhi School Education Act, 1973.
9. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Ekramul Bari the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Council is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and cannot deny the disclosure of the information as prayed by the petitioner by virtue of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. Mr. Bari further submitted that Memorandum being the Circular vide annexure “P-5” reflects that the existence and continuance of the Council has the backing of the autho
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
