The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to disclose point-wise categorical information permissible under the RTI Act regarding expenditure on board examinations and details of answer books, including the tendering and procurement process for Class 10 and Class 12 board exams.
Background of the RTI Application
The case originated from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic sessions. The applicant requested information on paper quality, number of pages, size, purchase cost, total expenditure, GST payments, and the tender process for procurement of answer sheets.
In its initial response, CBSE disclosed certain specifications of the answer books, stating that the paper used ranged from 60 GSM to 120 GSM, answer books contained 8, 20, 32, 40, or 48 pages, and were available in sizes of 22 x 28 cm and 37.5 x 54.5 cm. The board also mentioned that records regarding the weight of individual answer books were not maintained.
Denial of Information by CBSE
However, CBSE denied information relating to the purchase cost of answer books, the number purchased, and total expenditure incurred on procurement under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. On queries regarding the tender process, names of participating firms, rates quoted, and vendor selection, the board claimed that the matter was related to confidential and sensitive activities of board examinations and invoked exemptions under sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(g) of the Act.
CBSE also stated that expenditure data for examination fees was maintained on a financial year basis instead of academic sessions and declined to provide specific expenditure details. It further informed the applicant that expenditure on practical examinations was booked under a broader expenditure head and could not be segregated separately.
CIC's Intervention and Observations
The appellant challenged the response before the CIC, arguing that larger public interest and transparency warranted disclosure of information relating to procurement and expenditure. Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi observed that the core issue was the denial of information related to the tender process for purchase of answer sheets and other related stationary materials despite the appellant's contention that larger public interest justified disclosure.
The Commission found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied information under multiple exemption clauses without giving any proper justification. It also noted that the CPIO neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written statement to justify the denial of information.
CIC's Directive to CBSE
Accordingly, the CIC set aside the impugned reply of the CPIO dated 18.03.2025 in the absence of any justification for denial of the information sought. Referring to transparency in public procurement, the Commission observed that the Supreme Court and the CIC had time and again emphasized that such exemptions must be construed strictly to ensure accountability in public procurement and contracts by public authorities.
The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide revised point-wise categorical replies along with relevant permissible information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission further stated that the CPIO ought to have disclosed permissible information while redacting only those portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Information which are exempted from disclosure should be redacted or masked under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005. In case the information sought is covered under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the CPIO may justify such denial by giving justification under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Section 8(1)(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 satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
