Publish CBSE Selection Process for Answer Key Selection for RTI Act Exam: CIC

The Central Information Commission has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education to release “point-categorical” information, admissible under the Right to Information Act, regarding examination expenditure and details of those in charge, including tendering and procurement process, for the Class 10 and 12 board examinations.

Postponing CBSE’s earlier refusal of information under RTI, the transparency panel asked it to provide revised responses, saying information exempt from disclosure can be redacted or masked under Section 10 of the RTI Act, while any refusal under Section 8(1)(c) d) should be duly justified.

The case arose out of an RTI application seeking details of answer sheets used in class 10 and 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions, including paper quality, number of pages, size, cost of procurement, total expenditure, GST payments and details of tendering process for procurement of answer sheets.

In its response, CBSE disclosed certain specifications of the recorders, stating that the paper used ranged from 60 GSM to 120 GSM, the recorders contained 8, 20, 32, 40 or 48 pages and were available in 22 x 28 cm and 37.5 x 54.5 cm sizes.

The committee also said that records of the weight of individual respondents were not kept.

However, information on the acquisition costs of recorders, their number and total expenses spent on the acquisition were, according to § 8 paragraph 1 letter e) of the VZP Act rejected.

Asked about the bidding process, names of participating firms, rates offered and selection of vendors, the CBSE said the matter was related to the “confidential” and “sensitive” activities of the board’s examinations and sought an exemption under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) of the Act.

Also read | When students audit the system

The board also said data on examination fee expenditure was kept on a financial year basis instead of academic sessions and declined to provide specific details of the expenditure. She further informed the plaintiff that the expenses for the practical exams are included in the wider range of expenses and cannot be separated.

The appellant challenged the response at the CIC, arguing that the greater public interest and transparency justified the disclosure of information relating to public procurement and expenditure.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the main issue in the appeal was the denial of information related to the “tendering process for the purchase of the answer sheet and other related stationary” despite the appellant’s claim that greater public interest warranted disclosure.

The commission found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had withheld information on the basis of several exemption clauses “without giving any proper justification in this regard”.

It also noted that the CPIO did not appear or submit any written statement during the hearing to justify the rejection of the information.

“Accordingly, the impugned reply of the CPIO dated 18.03.2025 is hereby set aside in the absence of any justification for rejecting the information sought,” the CIC said.

Referring to transparency in public procurement, the Commission noted that the Supreme Court and the CIC had emphasized “time and again” that such exemptions must be strictly construed to ensure accountability of public bodies for public procurement and procurement.

“Now, in view of the petitioner’s averments during the hearing regarding irregularities in such offers, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to re-examine the contents of the concerned RTI application and provide revised point-by-point categorical responses along with relevant admissible information as may be provided under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005,” the CIC said.

The CIC further said that the CPIO should have disclosed the admissible information and redacted only those portions which are exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

“Information which is exempted from disclosure shall be redacted/hidden under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005. In case the information requested is covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO may justify such refusal by giving reasons under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005,” Order 20 said.

The provisions of § 8 paragraph 1 letter d) deals with information such as commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is convinced that the disclosure of such information requires greater public interest.

Published – 14 Jun 2026 21:18 IST