Central Information Commission
Happy Singh vs National Testing Agency on 31 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2024/637616
Happy Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Testing
Agency, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 06.06.2024 FA : 11.07.2024 SA : 24.08.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 09.08.2024 Hearing : 22.07.2025
Date of Decision: 31.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Reopened Registration Portal:
- Reason for reopening on April 9-10, 2024, 25 days before the exam.
- Number of students registered during this period.
- Details of these students (application number, date of birth, roll number, name, mother name, father name, gender, category, NEET score, rank, percentile, grace marks awarded, domicile state).
2. Paper Leak Incident in Patna:
Page 1 of 11- Clarification on the Patna paper leak.
- Details of students involved (same details as above).
3. Result Release Timing:
- Why were results released within hours of the final answer key on June 4, 2024?
- Why was this done on the same day as the Lok Sabha election results?
4. Marks vs. Rank Inflation:
- Explanation for significant marks vs. rank inflation.
5. Grace Marks:
- Basis and formula for grace marks.
- Minimum and maximum grace marks awarded.
- Percentage distribution of grace marks awarded in interval of every 5 marks.
- Number of students awarded grace marks.
- Details of these students (same details as above), etc./ other related information
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.08.2024 stated as under: -
"After considering the all the facts and the reply given by CPIO, following decision is communicated:
The criteria aspect and compensatory marks issue was adjudicated by the Honorable Supreme court of India in WP number 368 of 2024 dated 13 June 2024, Further attention is also drawn the Information Bulletin Chapter Number 17 Para Number 17.2. Pursuant to the Order dated 13.06.2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (Civil) No. 368 of 2024 a Re-Test was held for 1563 candidates in supersession of the compensatory marks which were awarded on 23 June 2024 from 02.00 P.M. to 05.20 P.M, out of which a total of 813 candidates appeared therein and the result was declared on 30.06.2024. The 1,563 students were given Page 2 of 11 the option of either appearing for the special test or in the alternative, to opt for their original marks without the addition of compensatory marks. Please refer to Press Release dated 6th June 2024 regarding queries of candidates on NEET (UG) 2024 Result declared on 04 June 2024 , Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to Post Declaration of the NEET (UG) 2024 Result, Public Notice dated 13th June 2024 regarding re-conduct of the NEET (UG) 2024 for affected candidates, Public Notice dated 30th June 2024 regarding declaration of the revised Result of 1563 Candidates and Press Release dated 26 July 2024 regarding the subject NTA Declares the Re-revised Result / NTA Scores / Rank of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test NEET (UG) 2024, which are available on NTA website https://exams.nta.ac.in/NEET/"
3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.08.2024.
4. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Manisha Srivastav, Assistant Director, attended the hearing in-person.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not replied within stipulated time limit. Moreover, the response given by the respondent subsequent to the FAA's order, was unsatisfactory.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia admitted that there has been a delay in disposing of the RTI application and stated that the following reply was given to the appellant on 21.10.2024:
"1-7. Please refer to Press Release dated 6th June 2024 regarding queries of candidates on NEET (UG) 2024 Result declared on 04 June 2024, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to Post Declaration of the NEET (UG) 2024 Result, Public Notice dated 13th June 2024 regarding re-conduct of the NEET (UG) 2024 for affected candidates, Public Notice dated 30th June 2024 regarding declaration of the revised Result of 1563 Candidates and Press Release dated 26 July 2024 regarding the subject NTA Declares the Re-revised Result/NTA Scores / Page 3 of 11 Rank of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test NEET (UG) 2024, which are available on NTA website https://exams.nta.ac.in/NEET/ You may please refer to the Order dated 23.07.2024 of the Honorable Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No 335 of 2024."
While responding in terms of merits of the case, the CPIO contended that the queries raised by the appellant seeking reasons and clarifications were not covered within Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The reply given against all points in the RTI application, in their latest written submissions dated 19.07.2025 are extracted below:
"1. (a) Reason for reopening on April 9-10, 2024, 25 days before the exam: It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. However, it is respectfully submitted that information concerning the reopening of the registration window is available in the public domain. Reference may be made to the Press Release dated April 8, 2024 (copy attached as Annexure- VI), titled "Reopening the Registration Window for receiving the online Application Forms of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test [NEET (UG)] 2024 Reg.", which is accessible оп the NTA website at https://exams.nta.ac.in/NEET/.
(b) Number of students registered during this period: It is submitted that no specific data detailing the exact number of students who registered only during the period of April 9-10, 2024, is maintained separately. Therefore, this information cannot be furnished.
(c) Details of these students (application number, date of birth, roll number, name, mother name, father name, gender, category, NEET score, rank, percentile, grace marks awarded, domicile state): The disclosure of individual student details Page 4 of 11 (application number, date of birth, roll number, name, mother name, father name, gender, category, NEET score, rank, percentile, grace marks awarded, domicile state) is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) (information held in a fiduciary relationship) and Section 8(1)(j) (personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Paper Leak Incident in Patna
(a) Clarification on the Patna paper leak: It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011].
(b) Details of students involved (same details as above): The disclosure of individual student details is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it pertains to personal information disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
(a) Why were results released within hours of the final answer key on June 4, 2024?
(b) Why was this done on the same day as the Lok Sabha election results?
It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. However, it is submitted that, as per the Press Release dated 6th June 2024 regarding queries of candidates on NEET (UG) 2024 Result, whose point number 4 states that "As per practice, the result of NTA Page 5 of 11 Examinations including NEET (UG) is declared at the earliest on the completion of the necessary checks in the result processing post the Answer Key challenge period. NTA managed to declare the Results of about 23 lakh candidates within 30 days. The Result of JEE (Main) 2024 Session-1 was declared in 11 days and of Session-2 (combined with Session 1) was declared in 15 days. The Result of NEET (UG) 2024 has been processed as per the established procedure." (copy attached as Annexure- VII)
4. Marks vs. Rank Inflation
(a) Explanation for significant marks vs rank inflation: It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. Furthermore, no such specific data analysis or explanation for "significant marks vs rank inflation" in the requested format is specifically maintained, and hence, no such information is available. Detailed information regarding the methodology for score and rank calculation is available in the NEET (UG) 2024 Information Bulletin and subsequent public notices on the NTA website (https://exams.nta.ac.in/NEET/).
5. Grace Marks
(a) Basis and formula for grace marks: It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. However, it is submitted that the basis and formula for grace marks have been addressed in point no. 2 of the Press Release dated 6th June 2024 (copy attached Page 6 of 11 as Annexure- VII) which is reproduced as below: "...The Committee considered the grievances/representations on the basis of factual reports of the functionaries and CCTV footages from concerned exam Centres. The loss of examination time was ascertained and such candidates were compensated with marks based on their answering efficiency and time lost, as per the mechanism/ formula established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 13.06.2018 in W.P. 551 of 2018. 1563 candidates were compensated for the loss of time and the revised marks of such candidates vary from -20 to 720 marks ..."
(b) Minimum and maximum grace marks awarded:
(c) Percentage distribution of grace marks awarded in interval of every 5 marks:
It is submitted that no such specific data regarding minimum and maximum grace marks awarded, or their percentage distribution in intervals of every 5 marks, is available to be furnished to the applicant. A CPIO is not expected to create information and can furnish only the information which is available in records, documents etc. and hence, the requisite information can not be furnished.
(d) Number of students awarded grace marks: As per the Public Notice dated 13th June 2024, 1563 candidates were awarded grace marks. (copy attached as Annexure-III)
(e) Details of these students (same details as above): The disclosure of individual student details (application number, date of birth, roll number, name, mother name, father name, gender, category, NEET score, rank, percentile, grace marks awarded, domicile state) is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
6. Rank and Scores Anomalies
(a) Why were grace marks not awarded to all affected students? It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw Page 7 of 11 inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. However, it is submitted that grace marks were awarded based on specific criteria and recommendations of an expert committee, applicable to candidates who experienced loss of time during the examination, as per point 2 of the Public Notice dated 6th June 2024 (copy attached as Annexure- VII).
(b) How can a student receive an All India Rank in decimal? It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is not expected to answer 'why' and 'how' responses in the RTI application and can furnish only the available information. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011].
(c) Explanation for same and different ranks at same scores. It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011].
(d) Justification for 67 students scoring 720 out of 720. It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]. However, point no. 27 of the Frequently Asked Questions (copy attached as Annexure-IV) contains information about candidates who got 720/720 marks which is reproduced as, "Out of the 67 candidates who got 720/720 marks, 44 are Page 8 of 11 on account of the revision in one Answer Key of Physics, and 06 are on account of compensatory marks for loss of time.
(e) Why many top scorers were from the same or adjacent centers? It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011].
(f) Explanation for the absence of surnames in 7 out of 8 top students. It is humbly submitted to the Commission that as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and is not expected to provide reasons, clarifications, or draw inferences. This aspect has been clarified in the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011].
7. Top 1000 Students List
(i) List of top 1000 students sorted by roll number (not marks or ranks) with serial number, roll number, name, NEET score, rank, domicile state and grace marks awarded:
(ii) List of all centers in the country where 700 and above marks were observed, indicating the number of students scoring 700 and above marks in the respective center:
No such data data is prepared in the format as desired by the applicant. Further, Commission would appreciate that a CPIO is expected to provide only the information which is available on record and not expected to create the information for the purpose of furnishing to the applicant. Hence, the required information cannot be furnished. However, the list of top 100 candidates is available in the Press Release dated 26 July 2024 (copy attached as Annexure- V) Page 9 of 11
8. Upon assuming the charge of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) on July 4, 2024, I was immediately confronted with a formidable challenge: a substantial backlog of over 6,000 RTI applications that had been pending for more than the stipulated 30-day period. Recognizing the right of citizens to information and upholding the spirit and mandate of the RTI Act, dedicated and comprehensive efforts were promptly initiated to address this significant pendency with a sense of utmost responsibility; however, navigating this immense workload, alongside managing over 50 ongoing court cases in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, and cooperating with the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation into irregularities concerning NEET (UG) 2024, presented considerable complexities, placing immense pressure on available resources. Despite these extraordinary and unforeseen challenges, the undersigned remained steadfast in its commitment to diligently process each application, and it has taken a considerable period of approximately three to four months of sustained, focused effort to dispose of this substantial pendency, ensuring each RTI was addressed thoroughly and in adherence to the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
9. I wish to assure the Hon'ble Commission of our unwavering commitment to transparency and timely dissemination of information and humbly request the Hon'ble Commission to take a considerate view of the delays encountered, acknowledging the diligent and responsible efforts undertaken to overcome these exceptional circumstances and ensure compliance with the RTI Act. In light of the above submissions made above and the reply already furnished to the applicant, the Hon'ble Commission is requested to dispose of the Second Appeal accordingly."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had provided elaborate written submissions on 19.07.2025, although the queries raised in the RTI application were in the nature of seeking reasoning and clarifications, which are not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In Page 10 of 11 terms of delay of three months in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO has submitted detailed written explanations highlighting the pending litigation as well as investigation in the matter before CBI, the reasons cited thereof are found reasonable. Therefore, no mala fide intention is attributable to the CPIO and considering the nature of queries in the RTI application, sufficient clarification has been given by the CPIO in their submissions extracted above in paragraph 6. No further action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 31.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO National Testing Agency, CPIO, RTI CELL, First Floor, NSIC-MDBP Building, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020 2 Happy Singh Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)