Central Information Commission
Pranav Jeevan P. 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/2024/641787
Pranav Jeevan P. ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Testing
Agency, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 13.06.2024 FA : 06.08.2024 SA : 19.09.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 07.09.2024 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 13.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Provide all documents (minutes of meetings, circulars, govt orders, mails, official communication) where NTA decided to use grace marks (normalization formula which has been devised and adopted by the Honorable Apex Court, vide its Judgment dated 13.06.2018) to address the loss of time faced by the candidates of NEET (UG) 2024.
2. In the press release by NTA on 6th June 2024, NTA says that a Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of eminent experts from the field of examination and academia was constituted to look into Page 1 of 6 grievances/representations and submit their recommendations regarding grace marks for loss of time in NEET 2024. Provide the details of the Grievance Redressal Committee.
3. Who are the members in the Grievance Redressal Committee mentioned in Q.2.
4. Provide the minutes of all meetings of the Grievance Redressal Committee mentioned in Q.2.
5. Provide all documents showing the recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee mentioned in Q.2.
..., etc./ other related information
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.09.2024 observed as under: -
Point No. 1: 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, Pursuant to this order, a re-test was held on 23rd June 2024 for 1563 candidates affected by the compensatory marks awarded earlier. Out of these, 813 candidates appeared, and the results were declared on 30th June 2024. These candidates were given the option to either take the special test or retain their original marks without the addition of compensatory marks. Further the aspect is also referred to the Information Bulletin Chapter Number 17 Para Number 17.2. The information you have requested cannot be disclosed as per section 8 of the RTI Act 2005.
Point No. 2: 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, Pursuant to this order, a re-test was held on 23rd June 2024 for 1563 candidates affected by the compensatory marks awarded earlier. Out of these, 813 candidates appeared, and the results were declared on 30th June 2024. These candidates were given the option to either take the special test or retain their original marks without the addition of compensatory marks. Further the aspect is Page 2 of 6 also referred to the Information Bulletin Chapter Number 17 Para Number 17.2. The information you have requested cannot be disclosed as per section 8 of the RTI Act 2005.To address the queries and concerns of candidates, the NTA has issued several notices and FAQs, which are available on the NTA website. These include:
• Press Release dated 6th June 2024 regarding queries on NEET (UG) 2024 results.
• Public Notice dated 13th June 2024 regarding the re-conduct of NEET (UG) 2024 for affected candidates.
• Public Notice dated 30th June 2024 regarding the declaration of revised results for 1563 candidates.
• Press Release dated 26th July 2024 regarding the re-revised result/ NTA scores/ rank of NEET (UG) 2024.
It is further informed that the matter has been thoroughly reviewed and adjudicated by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In the case of Vanshika Yadav vs. UOI and Others (W.P. (Civil) No. 335 of 2024), dated 23rd July 2024, the court addressed various issues concerning the examination. The matter is also being investigated by CBI. The government has also set up an expert committee for NTA monitored by Apex court.
Point No. 3 to 5: aspect is also referred to the Information Bulletin Chapter Number 17 Para Number 17.2. The information you have requested cannot be disclosed as per section 8 of the RTI Act 2005. Etc.
3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.09.2024.
4. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Manisha Srivastav, attended the hearing in-person.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the response from NTA for the RTI application came 168 days after filing the RTI (13/06/2024). The first appeal was filed Page 3 of 6 after 54 days of no response from NTA (06/08/2024), an appeal decision came after 32 days of appeal (07/09/2024), which was 82 days since the filing of the RTI. Second appeal was filed on 19/09/2024. Even after the late response, NTA has refused to answer the questions, provide the requested information and cited privacy, security and personal credentials of third party and candidates to justify the refusal. The response from NTA regarding all the questions is unsatisfactory and shows disregard to RTI Act and lack of accountability.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia relied upon their latest written submissions dated 21.07.2025:
"1. NTA, in its press release on June 6, 2024, stated that a Redressal Committee was constituted Grievance to look into grievances/representations regarding grace marks for loss of time. It confirmed that 1563 candidates were compensated based on their answering efficiency and time lost, "as per the mechanism/ formula established by the Hon'ble Apex Cour vide its judgment dated 13.06.2018 in W.P. 551 of 2018." Specific minutes of meetings or circulars detailing the initial decision to implement grace marks cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive information which was tabled In Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope.
2. The committee reviewed factual reports from officials and CCTV footage from relevant exam centers. However, further details cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive Information which was tabled in Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope.
3. The details of the members can not be furnished under Section 8 (1) (g) as the disclosure of information would hamper the security of the concerned persons as this is a confidential matter.
4. The committee reviewed factual reports from officials and CCTV footage from relevant exam centers. However, further minutes cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive information including details of candidates Page 4 of 6 affected which was tabled in Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope
5. The committee reviewed factual reports from officials and CCTV footage from relevant exam centers. However, further minutes cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive Information including details of candidates affected which was tabled in Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP Nо. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope.
6. "High Powered Committee" formed by NTA recommended the cancellation of grace marks, submitted its recommendations to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope.
7. The minutes cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive information including details of candidates affected which was tabled in Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope.
8. The minutes cannot be furnished as it contains confidential and sensitive information including details of candidates affected which was tabled in Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP no. 335 of 2024 and 368 of 2024 in sealed envelope."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent is partially incorrect and incongruous with the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent have shared the results of NEET (UG) 2024 including the cut-off marks, list of toppers in each category, also published at their website. The reply given by the CPIO is found appropriate except for the points no. 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the RTI application, wherein the CPIO has pleaded the information to be confidential, sensitive in nature and denied under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. On being queried, the CPIO submitted that the said data was tabled in Supreme Court during the proceedings and also informed that the decision in the said matter has been pronounced upon conclusion of proceedings. Assuming the plea was relevant at the material time, the respondent did not resort to any exemption clause laid down under the provisions of the RTI Act. Considering the above and in the Page 5 of 6 interest of transparency and accountability, the respondent is directed to re-visit points no. 4,5,7 and 8 of the RTI application and provide the information, free of cost, after redacting names of the individuals, officials and any other personal details, if any, as per Section 10 of the RTI Act, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, under due intimation to the Commission. No intervention is called for with respect to the remaining points in the RTI application.
In terms of the delay caused in responding to the RTI application, the respondent is directed to file detailed written submissions for not responding to the instant RTI Application(s) within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. 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 Pranav Jeevan P. Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)