Central Information Commission
Yati Dilip Patil vs National Board Of Examinations on 29 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906
Yati Dilip Patil .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Addl. Director, National
Board of Examination and
Medical Science, Dabri -
Gurgaon Road, Near District,
Dwarka Sector 9 Rd, PSP Area,
New Delhi, Delhi 110075 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2026
Date of Decision : 27.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.09.2024
CPIO replied on : 21.10.2024
First appeal filed on : 08.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.12.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 21.03.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.09.2024(online) seeking the following information:CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 1 of 12
"1 Attested photocopy of original question paper Part I held in the first session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the morning for Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 2 Attested photocopy of original question paper Part II second session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the afternoon for Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 3 Attested photocopy of model answer key of question paper Part I first session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the morning for Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 4 Attested photocopy of model answer key of question paper Part II second session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the afternoon for Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 5 Attested photocopy of all the answers ticked by Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 for the questions asked in the paper Part I First session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the morning. 6 Attested photocopy of all the answers ticked by Yati Dilip Patil Roll No 2411116562 and Application ID FMGE24137215 for the questions asked in the paper Part II Second session of FMG Exam held on 06TH July 2024 in the Afternoon"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.10.2024 stating as under:
"Reply: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. Please refer to para 9.7 of the FMGE June 2024 session Information Bulletin."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.12.2024, held as under:
"Reply :- It is the policy of NBEMS to not to give the question paper or answer key of FMGE."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Yati Dilip Patil along with his representative Shri Swamy Elanjelian, attended the hearing through VC.CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 2 of 12
Respondent: Dr. Pallav Bhandari, CPIO- cum- Deputy Director (Medical), NBEMS and Dr. Iboyaima Mangang, FAA- cum- Additional Director (Medical), NBEMS attended the hearing in person.
5. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
6. The Respondent submitted that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is covered under a Non-Disclosure Agreement as per para 9.7 of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) June 2024 session Information Bulletin, the relevant contents is reproduced herein:
"FMGE is a proprietary examination and is conducted only by NBEMS. The contents of this exam are confidential, proprietary and are owned by NBEMS. NBEMS explicitly prohibits the candidate, from reproducing, transmitting or publishing any or some contents of this exam, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means verbal or written, electronic or mechanical for any purpose whatsoever. NBEMS shall not entertain any request for sharing any content of the examination including answer keys/answer sheets"
7. He added that FMGE is a mandatory licensure and screening test for inclusion of foreign-educated doctors and is completely a Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) based exam. The information regarding the questions and answer keys cannot be shared with the public since the question bank is limited and disclosure of such information would defeat the purpose of future FMGE.
8. The appellant intervened and stated that Non-Disclosure Agreement is illegal and question papers and answer keys should be provided and further relied on a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition No. 604/2002, decided on 16.11.2004.
9. The Respondent interjected submitted that as per Clause 9.9 of the information bulletin, a candidate by registering for and/or appearing in FMGE, explicitly agrees to the Non-Disclosure Agreement and general terms of use for FMGE as contained in the Information Bulletin. The Respondent further sought some time from the Bench to file their counter reply to Sanjeev Gupta judgment.
CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 3 of 1210. A written submission has been received from Dr. Pallav Bhandari, CPIO, NBEMS vide letter dated 22.04.2026 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"It is hereby submitted that the FMGE is conducted by a computer-based platform and not by a pen and paper mode. The questions asked in online mode are shuffled for each candidate and even the distractors are shuffled for each candidate to reduce the chances of using unfair means. The options are accordingly identified by a unique multi-digit number rather than A/B/C/D or 1/2/3/4. Neither the publication of answer keys is permissible in terms of the "Non-Disclosure Agreement" of NBEMS which is duly acknowledged by all applicants of FMGE while appearing in FMGE nor is it feasible considering the nature of computer-based examinations.
The publication of answer keys is meaningless too without publication of the questions and publication of questions would infringe upon the proprietorship of the answering respondent as well as will defy the purpose of conduct of this examination as detailed above."
11. After conclusion of the hearing, a counter reply has been received from Dr. Pallav Bhandari, CPIO-cum-DD, vide reply dated 06.05.2026 and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS
1. That the Respondent has already filed its detailed Response dated 22.04.2026 to the Notice dated 08.04.2026 issued by this Hon'ble Commission, along with supporting annexures, and the same is reiterated and adopted in full and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The present submission is being filed by way of rejoinder to specifically address the contentions urged by the Appellant in his Second Appeal dated 21.03.2025 and the three documents relied upon at Exhibits 'F', 'G' and 'H' thereof.
2. That at the outset, it is most humbly submitted that none of the three authorities relied upon by the Appellant namely, Sanjeev Gupta v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 45 (Exhibit 'F'); the order of this Hon'ble Commission in Saurabh Yadav v. Dinesh Chand, Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002724/16593 dated 27.12.2011 (Exhibit 'G'); and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 02.05.2022 in All India Medical Students Welfare Forum v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 2078 of 2021 (Exhibit 'H') have any application to the prayer of the Appellant herein, for the reasons elaborated hereinafter. With CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 4 of 12 great respect, the reliance placed by the Appellant on these authorities suffers from material suppression and selective extraction.
3. That the prayer of the Appellant, at its highest, falls squarely within the ratio of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Vikrant Bhuria, LPA 487/2011 dated 28.05.2012 and All India Foreign Medical Graduates Association v. National Board of Examination & Orx., W.P. (C) Nos. 6984/2014 & 8559/2014 dated 25.11.2016, and the consistent view of this Hon'ble Commission in R. Seshadri v. CPIO, MCI & CPIO, NBE [CIC/Y/A/2016/90043 and connected appeals, decided 28.02.2017] and Manish Kumar Sharma v. CPIO, NBE (CIC/YA/A/2014/001131], all of which have already been placed on the record of this Hon'ble Commission as Annexures B, C, D and E respectively to the Respondent's Response dated 22.04.2026.
L RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT'S RELIANCE ON SANJEEV GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA, (2005) 1 SCC 45 (EXHIBIT 'F')
4. That the Appellant has, at paragraphs 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d) of the Second Appeal, sought to leverage the Minutes of the meeting dated 30.06.2004 (annexed to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Gupta) and in particular Clauses 6 and 7 thereof, which read that "NBE... shall also place on their Website the correct answers of the questions for the knowledge of the candidates after the date of examination" and "NBE shall place adequate information on its Website to enable the candidates to have sufficient knowledge of the syllabus of the examination model question papers etc. ", to argue that NBEMS is bound under the said decision to publish question papers and answer keys.
5 That the said reliance is wholly misplaced and misconceived, for the following independent and cumulative reasons:
(a) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeev Gupta did not adjudicate any issue under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Gupta was concerned with the constitutional validity of the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 framed under Section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and with the nature, content and methodology of the Screening Test for foreign medical graduates. The judgment was delivered on 16.11.2004, more than a year prior to the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, and could not and did not-pronounce on the contours of statutory disclosure under that Act.
(b) Clauses 6 and 7 of the Minutes are recommendations, not enforceable directions. Clause 9 of the very Minutes relied upon expressly records that the CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 5 of 12 recommendations were "to be got approved at the appropriate level by the Government and the MCI before placement of the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for consideration and passing appropriate orders". The operative direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 51 merely "approved" the Minutes and ordered that "In future the screening test would he conducted as per the guidelines laid doven in the meeting held on 30-06-2004". The Apex Court did not and was not invited to mandate publication of past question papers, nor convert any administrative recommendation into a justiciable right of disclosure.
(c) The expression "model question papers" in Clause 7 cannot be equated with "past question papers". A model question paper, in common parlance and in the context of competitive examinations, is a specimen or sample paper prepared and curated separately to acquaint candidates with the broad pattern, structure and difficulty level of the examination it is not the actual examination paper administered to candidates. Conflating the two, as the Appellant seeks to do, would render the carefully calibrated distinction in Clause 7 nugatory.
(d) The reference in Clause 6 to placing "correct answers... on website" has been overtaken by subsequent binding precedent and the change in the modality of the examination. As elaborately submitted at paragraph 16 of the Respondent's Response dated 22.04.2026, the FMGE is now conducted on a computer-based platform, with questions and even distractors shuffled per candidate and options identified by unique multi-digit codes rather than A/B/C/D. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Vikrant Bhuria (supra) and in AIFMGA v. NBE (supra) has expressly held that disclosure of FMGE/NBE question papers and answer keys is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and is not in public interest.
(e) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIFMGA (W.P. (C) Nos. 6984/2014 & 8559/2014, decided 25.11.2016) has already construed the very Minutes of 30.06.2004 along with the Sanjeev Gupta judgment, and has, after a Committee constituted by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare evaluated FMGE question papers of three preceding years, recorded at paragraph 13 that it "[did] not find substance in the allegations of irregularities" and that "the reliefs prayed for in W.P. (C) No. 8559/2014 cannot he granted". W.P. (C) No. 8559/2014 specifically prayed for production of FMGE question papers. The Hon'ble High Court thereby refused, on merits, the very disclosure that the present Appellant now seeks, after considering the very same Sanjeev Gupta Minutes that the Appellant relies upon. This decision is binding and concludes the matter.
CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 6 of 126. That, additionally, the Appellant's grievance at paragraph 8(d) of the Second Appeal is misconceived and wrongly placed. The structure of the Screening Test is governed by the Screening Test Regulations, 2002 framed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (now the National Medical Commission) and is a matter of substantive examination policy. Such a challenge cannot be entertained in proceedings under Section 19 of the RTI Act, which are confined to the question of access to information and not to the design of public examinations. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, in any event, already approved the existing examination pattern in AIFMGA (supra) and the same has stood the test of judicial scrutiny."
Decision:
12. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply, based on available records and in accordance with the RTI Act, has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2024. The Commission further observes that in judgment Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr. in Writ Petition No. 604/2002 decided on 16.11.2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the validity of the screening test requirement for Indian students and did not pronounce on the contours of statutory disclosure, of question papers and answer keys pertaining to FMGE, under the RTI Act. The Commission would like to make an observation that the present case presents a different factual matrix, making the precedent set in case of Sanjeev Gupta & Ors. V. Union of India & Anr., inapplicable and the statutory context of the two cases are fundamentally different.
13. It is also pertinent to mention that the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application is covered under a Non-Disclosure Agreement as per para 9.7 read with para 9.9 of the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) June 2024.
14. With regards to the question of disclosure of question papers and answer key in such examination where the question bank is limited, the Commission relies on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ministry of Railways v/s. K.G. Arun Kumar vide W.P.(C) 2173/2013 and CM 4120/2013 decided on 21.11.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 7 of 12
"The petitioner impugns an order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter CIC), inter alia, directing that the respondent be permitted to inspect the answer sheets and also be provided the question papers with respect to the tests undertaken by the respondent.
The controversy to be addressed is whether the petitioner is entitled to withhold the question papers of the written test as well as answer sheets and question papers of aptitude test taken by respondent. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had undertaken an aptitude test and written examination for being selected to the post of Assistant Station Master (ASM) with the petitioner. The written examination was held on 13.06.2010 and the petitioner was selected for aptitude test which was conducted on 03.02.2011. According to the petitioner, he had faired well and thus, ought to have been selected. However, the petitioner was not among the final candidates selected for the appointment. Thereafter, the respondent filed applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the Act) seeking information relating to the written examination as well as the aptitude test. By an application dated 09.06.2011, the petitioner sought information including the following information:-
(i) Copies of answer sheets and question of Aptitude test of mine and other 37 candidates who were all selected as per the final list, with the key used for evaluation.
(ii) Copies of answer sheets and question papers of written test of mine and other 37 candidates who were all selected as per the final list, with the key used for evaluation.
In response to the aforesaid application dated 09.06.2011, the Assistant Public Information Officer (hereafter APIO) sent a response on 21.06.2011 permitting the respondent to inspect his answer sheets of the written examination but denied the answer sheets and the question papers of the aptitude test.
Aggrieved by the denial of information by APIO, respondent filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (hereafter FAA) which was rejected on 07.07.2011. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a second appeal before the CIC. The said appeal was disposed of by the order dated 18.10.2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that psychological tests are designed to test the mental aptitude for safety category staff necessary for safety on the Indian Railways. It was further submitted that the aptitude tests, question papers and the OMR sheets are reused in different examinations conducted by Railway Recruitment Board and a disclosure of the aptitude question papers would effectively destroy the ability of the petitioner to use the aptitude question papers in future examinations. It is further submitted that it takes several years to design CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 8 of 12 an aptitude test and the petitioner would be prejudiced if the respondent is provided such information.
It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the copies of the question papers of the written examinations ought not to be provided since the number of questions were limited and the same are also used in different tests.
The controversy whether an examining body can be asked to disclose the question papers in circumstances where the number of questions are limited and are repeated, has been considered by this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri MSF Beig : W.P.(C) No.272/2012 decided on 20.11.2014 and it has been held that in such cases, the examining body cannot be compelled to disclose the question papers. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the CIC's order directing the petitioner to provide copy of question papers or provide OMR sheets is rejected."
15. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment, squarely applies to the instant case. The Commission notes that the information sought is a part of a limited question bank the disclosure of which may compromise the basic integrity of the concerned question bank.
16. Further, the Commissions relies on a judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences versus Vikrant Bhuria, in LPA No. 487 of 2011, decided on 28.05.2012, wherein it was held as under:
"xxx.
14. We tend to agree with the counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Apex Court in Shaunak H. Satya (supra) cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Apex Court was in the backdrop of the question papers in that case being available to the examinees during the examination and being also sold together with suggested answers after the examination. Per contra in the present case, the question papers comprises only of multiple choice questions and are such which cannot be carried out from the examination hall by the examinees and in which examination there is an express prohibition against copying or carrying out of the question papers. Thus the reasoning given by the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the present case.
15. We are satisfied that the nature of the examination, subject matter of this appeal, is materially different from the examination considered by the Supreme Court in the judgment supra. There are few seats, often limited to one only, in such super-speciality courses and the examinees CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 9 of 12 are highly qualified, post graduates in the field of medicine. Though the respondent, as aforesaid, has paid tributes to the faculty of the appellant and credited them with the ingenuity to churn out now questions year after year but we cannot ignore the statement in the memorandum of this appeal supported by the affidavit of the Sub-Dean (Examinations) of the appellant to the effect that the number of multiple choice questions which can be framed for a competitive examination for admission to a super-speciality course dealing with one organ only of the human body, are limited. This plea is duly supported by the prohibition on the examinees from copying or carrying out from the examination hall the question papers or any part thereof. We have no reason to reject such expert view.
xxx.
17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011 SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly interfere therewith. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint Admission Board (JAB) (2012) 1 SCC 157 observing that the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and Courts will not interfere in such processes. xxx...
21. When we apply the tests aforesaid to the factual scenario as urged by the appellants and noted above, the conclusion is irresistible that it is not in public interest that the information sought be divulged and the information sought is such which on a purposive construction of Section 8 is exempt from disclosure.
22. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the CIC directing the appellant to disclose the information and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant.
(emphasis supplied)"
CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 10 of 1217. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the above case also applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent does not commercialize its intellectual property in way of publishing its entrance/Screening exam's questions and answers at any stage. Therefore, the Commission finds substance in the submissions made by the Respondent that FMGE is conducted by a computer-based platform and not by a pen and paper mode. The questions asked in online mode are shuffled for each candidate and even the distractors are shuffled for each candidate to reduce the chances of using unfair means. The options are accordingly identified by a unique multi-digit number rather than A/B/C/D or 1/2/3/4. Neither the publication of answer keys is permissible in terms of the "Non-Disclosure Agreement" of NBEMS which is duly acknowledged by all applicants of FMGE while appearing in FMGE nor is it feasible considering the nature of computer-based examinations. The publication of answer keys is meaningless too without publication of the questions and publication of questions would infringe upon the proprietorship of the Respondent as well as will defy the purpose of conduct of this examination. In the light of above observations, the Commission accepts the reply furnished by the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention is required in the instant Second Appeal.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasistha) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 11 of 12 Copy To:
The FAA, Addl. Director, National Board of Examination and Medical Science, Dabri - Gurgaon Road, Near District, Dwarka Sector 9 Rd, PSP Area, New Delhi, Delhi 110075 CIC/NBDOE/A/2025/613906 Page 12 of 12 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)