Central Information Commission
Varun Bhardwaj vs National Testing Agency on 15 May, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NTAGN/A/2025/614076
VARUN BHARDWAJ .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY,
RTI CELL, 1st FLOOR, NSIC-MDBP BUILDING,
OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110020 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.05.2026
Date of Decision : 13.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 22.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 11.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.12.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 23.03.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"आदरणीय सूचना अ धकार जी hssc/ nta ु प d पर ा adv 1/2023 क 22 अ टूबर 2023 क शाम क पाल के पेपर कोड H 4 के 2 वे चन के वषय म सूचनाएं दान करे Page 1 of 7
1. पेपर सेटर या अ य वारा orignal आंसर key म न सं या 26 म या उ र दया गया था
2. वे चन पर ऑ जे शन लगने के बाद ऑ जे शन के मामले पर फैसला लेने के लए जो स म त बनाई गई उसमे कुल कतने ए जा मनर शा मल थे (क) इस स म त म पर न सं या 26 का ओ रजनल आंसर दे ने वाले सद य को शा मल कया गया या नह
3. पेपर सेटर या अ य वारा orignel आंसर क म न सं या 61 म या उ र दया गया था
4. वे चन पर ऑ जे शन लगने के बाद ऑ जे शन के मामले पर फैसला लेने के लए जो स म त बनाई गई उसमे कुल कतने ए जा मनर शा मल थे (क) इस स म त म पर न सं या 61 का ओ रजनल आंसर दे ने वाले सद य को शा मल कया गया या नह "
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.11.2024 stating as under:
"Reply :- 1) & 3) HSSC CET ु प डी से संबं धत सभी डेटा / रज ट नवंबर, 2023 माह म HSSC को स प दए गए ह, िजसमे क काफ समय बीत चुका है , इस लए यह मामला समय-बा धत है। इसके अलावा, कृपया HSSC वारा जार सावज नक सूचना दनांक 10.11.2023, त ल प संल न ( बंदु सं या 5 और 6) का सं ान ल िजसम प ट प से उ लेख कया गया है क रज ट/ को रंग के लए अं तम उ र कुंजी (Final Answer Key) को संद भत कया जाएगा।
2, 2(क), 4 & 4(क) ऐसे कसी भी मामले के लए वषय वशेष का एक पैनल नयु त कया जाता है।"
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.12.2024, stating as under-
"Reply :- अपीलकता, ब ण भार वाज मकान नंबर-****** ने पंजीकरण सं या एनट एएचई/जार/ई/24/09280 दनांक 03.10.2024 के मा यम से एक ऑनलाइन आरट आई अनुरोध कया। वह सूचना सीपीआईओ वारा 22.11.2024 को दान क गई थी। अब अपीलकता ने पंजीकरण सं या NTAHE/A/E/24/00753 दनांक 11.11.2024 के मा यम से पहल अपील क थी। मामले क जांच क गई और पाया गया क सीपीआईओ के पास उपल ध जानकार दान क गई है और यह सह है। हालाँ क, आपके अनुरोध के अनुसार आपको यि तगत सुनवाई का अवसर दया जाता है।Page 2 of 7
तदनुसार, आप इस प के जार होने क तार ख से 20 दन के भीतर कसी भी काय दवस पर सुबह 10:00 बजे से शाम 04:00 बजे तक ी अंकुर वमा, सीपीआईओ को 011-69095212/[email protected] पर पूव सूचना दे कर इस कायालय म आ सकते ह। ता क यि तगत सुनवाई के लए आव यक यव था क जा सके। इस कायालय का पूरा पताः रा य पर ण एजसी, पहल मंिजल, एनएसआईसी-एमडीबीपी बि डंग, ओखला इंडि यल ए टे ट, नई द ल -110020। (नोट: य द आप बना पूव सूचना के इस कायालय म आते ह, तो हम आव यक यव था करने म स म नह ं हो सकते ह)। कृपया यान द क आगे कोई अवसर नह ं दया जाएगा य क यह पहले से ह एक समय बा धत मामला है।
इस लए, अब, सूचना का अ धकार अ ध नयम, 2005 क धारा 19 (6) के तहत द शि तय का योग करते हुए, अपीलकता वारा क गई अपील का नपटारा कया जाता है।
तदनुसार, अपील न ता रत क जाती ह।"
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Shri Varun Bhardwaj present in person. Respondent: Shri Manish Srivastava, Asst. Director (Exam IV)-cum-CPIO present in person.
5. Written statement dated 12.05.2026 filed by the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant contended that information sought regarding empanelment of original question paper setter to the empanelled experts who has reviewed the answer key has not been informed by the CPIO so far. The Appellant contended that the CPIO had intentionally suppressed this information for the reasons best known to him. Appellant further contested that he has already challenged the answers to Q. No. 26 and 61 of the subject question paper before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide CWP No. 20897/2024 which is sub-judice as on date. The Appellant contended that if the records of the information sought were handed over to the HSSC, then the CPIO should have transferred the RTI application in question under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Page 3 of 7 Act, 2005 to the concerned public authority, which has not been done in this matter. Moreover, his First Appeal has been disposed of by affirming the reply of the CPIO which as per the version of the Appellant is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking intervention in the matter.
7. CPIO by placing reliance on his written statement stated that Appellant has sought information regarding challenge process of Q. No. 26 and 61 in Paper Code H4 and committee of experts involved in the challenge process in HSSC Group D exam conducted on 22.10.2023 for which it was informed to the Appellant that HSSC CET Group D exam data has been handed over to HSSC. It was also informed to the Appellant that final answer key is to be referred for result/scoring, further, a panel of experts is constituted for evaluation of answer key challenge and final answer key is decided/issued after proper review by the empanelled experts. CPIO added that apart from initial reply, the FAA while disposing the First Appeal offered an opportunity of personal meeting within 20 days prior notice, however, the Appellant instead of informing the date and time, questioned that rights/laws/rule which empowers the FAA to review its order under the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO apprised the Bench that selection/result of candidates are declared on the basis of final answer key after its proper review through a panel of experts and there is no question of any information in the form of provisional answer key as such, as sought by the Appellant. The CPIO handed over a copy of his written statement to the Appellant during the course of hearing, which is taken on record.
Decision:
8. Heard the parties.
9. Having considered the submissions of both the parties and after perusing the materials facts of the instant Appeal, the Commission observes at the outset that queries raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI application are more in the nature of seeking clarifications/explanations which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. For that purpose, the Commission relies on a judgement Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
Page 4 of 7"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
10. Similarly, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied)
11. However, ignoring this aspect, the CPIO made sincere efforts to provide point-wise reply along with relevant permissible and available information to Page 5 of 7 the Appellant as quoted in para 2 and 7 above of this decision. The Commission finds no infirmity in the response of the CPIO as it is found to be within the precincts of the RTI Act, 2005.
12. Further, as per the version of the Appellant that emerged during hearing, the issue pertaining to the subject matter of information sought regarding challenge process of Q. No. 26 and 61 in Paper Code H4 and committee of experts involved in the challenge process in HSSC Group D exam conducted on 22.10.2023 is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide writ petition number CWP No. 20897/2024, it is better recourse for the Appellant to wait for the final verdict of the Court.
13. Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellant regarding transfer of RTI application by the CPIO to Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC), which comes under State subject, under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, because the DoPT OM 10/2/2008-IR dated 12/06/2008 is very clear on this aspect, wherein it has been elucidated that if a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration. Application, in such a case, need not be transferred to the State Government/UT Administration.
14. Having observed as above, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter, at this juncture.
15. Considering the above facts, the Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application before the concerned Public Authority, HSSC, as considered necessary.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Page 6 of 7 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri VARUN BHARDWAJ Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)