Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
ganpat1956

CIC permits disclosure of question-wise marks

Recommended Posts

ganpat1956

Students still can’t access their evaluated answer-sheets but they are getting close.

 

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education to give a Delhi student, question-wise marks awarded to her in the Class X science and technology paper in 2005.

The CBSE – that has been strongly opposed to showing students their evaluated answer-sheets – had responded in this case that there were no provisions in the examination byelaws of the board to show the answer-script to candidates.

 

An internal appeal moved on behalf of the student, Aditi Gupta, against this response was also turned down; the CBSE took cover under an exemption clause in the Right to Information clause that bars information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship.

 

Incidentally, the CIC had first cited this exemption clause to turn down an RTI request in February. The order had been severely criticised by RTI activists including Magsaysay award-winner Arvind Kejriwal who argued that the commission had misinterpreted this provision. In subsequent cases, the commission, however, agreed to take a relook and refer this issue to a Full Bench of the Commission to take final call.

 

In a brief order this week, Information Commissioner Dr OP Kejariwal kept the request for inspection of the answer-sheet pending in view of the constitution of the Full Bench but ordered CBSE to "disclose the question-wise marks obtained" by Aditi Gupta in the Class X examination 2005 within a fortnight. The commission had earlier ruled in favour of letting students see the answer-keys, the document that guides evaluators on marks to be awarded for various parts of a question.

 

The CBSE has the option of moving the High Court against the CIC decision; the public examination body, Union Public Service Commission had approached the court in October, 2006 to stay operation of a CIC directive on disclosure of cut-off marks and individual marks of candidates who took the Civil Services examination. The court had granted the stay on the UPSC plea that disclosure of this information would undermine the entire examination procedure.

 

(Hindustan Times, New Delhi, Dec.23,2006)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

In a recent decision, CIC has allowed disclosure of question wise marks to a student of CBSE:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_17032008_15.pdf

 

The case came today before this Bench wherein the Appellant asked for

disclosure of question-wise marks for different subjects in the Class XII

examinations held by CBSE. The Respondents stated that they were always ready

to disclose the subject-wise marks but disclosure of questions-wise marks would

put a great strain on their functioning. The Commission sees this as no reason for

not allowing disclosure of question wise marks to the Appellant.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

In a decision contrary to the above, IC SG has disallowed the disclosure of question wise marks to a CBSE class XII student on 4th November 2009:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-04112009-01.pdf

 

As per the Full Bench decision of the Commission in Rakesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. PIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat & Ors. CIC/WB/C2006/00223 copies of answer sheet need not be provided by certain public authorities including CBSE. The basis for this decision is that huge numbers of students take examinations conducted by the CBSE and therefore disclosure of answer sheets would be practically very difficult. Furthermore, the Commission noted that “every University and Board has a mechanism for re-evaluation which can be made use of by those who have genuine apprehensions about the fairness of the system”.

The Appellant has sought question-wise marks in Chemistry exam in 2006. The problems faced by CBSE in providing copies of answer sheets, based on which the Commission had ruled in the favour of CBSE, are the same as those that it would face in disclosing question-wise marks.

In view of this, the Commission hereby withdraws its previous decision.

 

This is a "adjunct" decision to the original - the original order on 22/12/2008 had allowed the disclosure of question wise marks.

 

How come the adjunct came nearly a year after the original decision ?

What happened in the meantime ?

Did anyone ask the IC for a review ?

Why didn't the PIO provide the information as per the original order of 22/12/2008 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadgamaya

I have requested for the details of an answer in a departmental examination(I got the answer key, but not satisfied with that i have sent a request under RTI). But I got the reply that it can not be disclosed since the case is pending in one of the benches of Patna Central Administrative Tribunal. I have submitted an appeal. The CIC is hearing this case this week. I wish to participate by audio conference. Kindly advice me how I should present my arguments in support of my claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      In our opinion no. Information which is forbidden by law or information of a nature, if disclosed, would defeat the provisions of any law or disclosure whereof is opposed to public policy, cannot be regarded as lawful and is to be ignored and no disclosure thereof can be made or directed to be made.- HC
      Once a purposive interpretation is given to Section 8, it will be found that information forbidden to be published [Section 8(1)(b)] and information available in fiduciary relationship [Section 8(1)(e)] is exempt.
      In our opinion, even though there is no express order of any court of law forbidding publication of marks [as is the want of Section 8(1)(b)] but the effect of bringing the regime of grades in place of marks and of dismissal of challenge thereto, is to forbid publication/disclosure of marks. Similarly, in the evaluation process prescribed by appellant, for guidance of its examiners, marks are only to arrive at a grade, perhaps as aforesaid to acquaint the examiners with the grading system and as a transitory stage in the shift from marks to grades.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 294/IC(A)/2006
      F.No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00336
      Dated, the 21st Sep., 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri Om Prakash Agarwal, 25, Strand Road, 723, Marshall House, Kolkata-700001.
      Name of the Public Authority : The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, ICAI Bhavan, Indraprastha marg, P.B. No.7100, New Delhi-110002. DECISION
       
      Facts:
      The appellant had sought certain information which are furnished by the member companies and are available with the respondent in fiduciary capacity.
      The CPIO has denied the information on the ground that the information sought has no relation with public action or interest. The CPIO has also mentioned that the appellant has filed a complaint against the companies whose information are being sought. He has therefore contended that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. He has thus soughtexemption u/s 8(1) (h) of the Act. Commission’s Decision:
      Information sought relate to the personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which do not fall under public domain. As such, there is no overriding public interest in disclosure of information sought, which is exempt u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download segment


       

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy