Central Information Commission
Sabari S vs Ut Of Puducherry on 22 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2024/614442
Sabari S .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Deputy Registrar (RC), Pondicherry
University, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Administrative Building, R.V. Nagar,
Kalapet, Puducherry - 605014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2025
Date of Decision : 19.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 02.01.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.01.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 23.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 13.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"Sub: For want of Answer sheet Xerox copy and to know the professors who have corrected my Answer sheets.Page 1 of 5
I am an LL.B. (Three Years Course - 2020-2023) student of Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Puducherry. My Registration Number is 20LT0049. I kindly request you to please provide me the Xerox copy of the valuated Answer sheet of the theory paper (Intellectual Property Law) (subject code F6010) of sixth semester. Also I humbly request to please let me know the professor who have valuated my Answer sheet and also the professor who have re-valuated the Answer sheet."
2. The CPIO & Deputy Registrar(RC) furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.01.2024 stating as under:
"Copy of the reply received from the Assistant Registrar (Medical)/DPIO, Examination Wing is enclosed.
Encl. dated 29.12.2023 is as under:
S. Information Sought Reply
No
1 The RTI applicant has The RTI applicant may inspect his
requested the Xerox copy of evaluated answer script under RTI
the answer script Act, for the required information.
(Intellectual Property Law) of There is no provision to provide the
sixth semester. copy of the evaluated Answer
Scripts to students.
2 The RTI applicant has Details of evaluators of the answer
requested the details of the scripts are highly confidential and
Examiners who have hence it cannot be disclosed to the
valuated the Answer Sheet RII applicant under Section-8(1) (g)
and also who have and (j) of the RTI Act 2005.
revaluated his answer sheet.
Further, it is informed that the applicant may be requested to inspect his evaluated Answer Scripts on 10.01.2024 during the Office hours, i.e. 9.30 am to 5.30 pm in the Medical Section of the Examination Wing, Pondicherry University. Puducherry-14.
If the above mentioned date is not convenient to the RTI applicant, it may be informed in writing to the undersigned, suggesting an alternate date, giving us time of at least 7 days in advance to fix the alternate date. The RTI applicant may also be requested to bring a valid ID card for verification."Page 2 of 5
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.01.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 23.02.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: Dr. M. R. Keerthana, PIO/Law Officer, appeared through video conference.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 05.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.
6. The Appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the Respondent was incomplete and evasive. He requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide the complete information free of cost.
7. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that she had filed detailed written submissions dated 16.09.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the Appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"Shri S. Sabari has filed RTI application through online dated 13.12.2023 (Enclosure-I). The RTI application along with the file was forwarded to Assistant Registrar/DPIO, Medical Section for providing information and the same was received on 29.12.2023 respectively.
Based on the reply received from DPIO, reply was provided to the applicant on 02.01.2024 (Enclosure-II).
Meanwhile the RTI applicant not satisfied with the reply had filed first appeal dt.13.01.2024 to the First Appellate Authority.
The appellant has now filed Second appeal before CIC. The Notice of hearing for Appeal/Complaint has been forwarded to the Assistant Registrar/DPIO, Medical Section to provide the details and brief facts.Page 3 of 5
Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar/DPIO, Medical Section has replied as follows:
Enclosing herewith the copy of the answer scripts for the paper "Intellectual Property Law written on 24.07.2023 by Shri Sabari, Reg. No.20LT0049 LL.B (3 years), Dr. Ambedkar Govt. Law College, Puducherry, as sought for by him.
As regards the information sought for by him regarding the examiner evaluated/re-evaluated his answer scripts, the appellant may be informed that the information cannot be disclosed as per section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act 2025. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the CBSC Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay case also held that the information as to the name or particulars of the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/Head examiners are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, on the ground that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety."
Decision:
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point- wise reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2024. the PIO through the written submission dated 16.09.2025 provided the information sought on point No. 1 and denied the information sought on point No. 2 of the RTI application under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds that replies given by the Respondents are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. However, in the interest of justice, the Respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of records related to the query raised on point No. 1 of the RTI application, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the PIO telephonically and in writing well in advance. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the PIO on payment of requisite fees as per the Rules.
Page 4 of 59. As regard point No. 2, the Commission finds that since, appropriate reply has been given, no intervention is warranted on this point.
10. The FAA is directed to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Administrative Building, R.V. Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry - 605014 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)