Central Information Commission
Muskan vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 16 April, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBSED/A/2019/134958
Muskan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CBSE, RTI Cell, Shiksa
Kendra - 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, New Delhi - 110092. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/04/2021
Date of Decision : 15/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/05/2019
CPIO replied on : 22/05/2019
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/06/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2019 seeking attested copies of her evaluated answer booklets/sheets for Roll No. 2640496.1
The CPIO furnished the reply to the appellant on 22.05.2019. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.05.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by her father, Manoj Kumar through video conference.
Respondent: Lily Kumudini Tirley, Assistant Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that at this stage she wants to restrict the case to seeking an inquiry into the delay caused in providing her with the answer scripts as requested under the Life & Liberty clause of the RTI Act as she had to forego the opportunity of pursuing her graduation from a prestigious Delhi University College for want of desired percentage of marks. She further stated that the subject experts whom she has consulted in this regard have informed her that her answers could have easily fared her 97 percentile as opposed to the 94 percentile awarded to her. Lastly, she alleged that the CBSE has been deliberately causing her agony as despite making reminder calls to the CPIO to provide the information in time, the CPIO did not pay any heed to her requests, rather dismissed her prayers on the grounds that the 30 day's time period for replying to the RTI Application was not yet over.
The CPIO submitted that the initial RTI Application filed by the Appellant with CBSE HQ, Delhi was not accompanied with proper fees and the same was intimated to her, subsequent to which the resubmitted RTI Application was received by their Regional Office, Panchkula on 18.06.2019 and the information was provided to her on 06.08.2019. She further submitted that the delay in providing the answer sheets was due to the time taken in sorting of papers by the answer book cell. She furthermore pointed out that it is not as if the access to the answer scripts or the right to seek re-evaluation was denied to the Appellant, as with all students, CBSE allows a 3-5 day's window on their website to file for copy of answer sheets and re- evaluation for all the students and as per their records, the Appellant did not apply for copy of the answer sheets or revaluation during this facilitation period and later 2 has sought for the same through the RTI Act even as request for revaluation cannot be entertained under the RTI Act.
The Appellant's father prayed to submit at this point that the exorbitant fees charged by CBSE does not allow for all parents, especially the middle and low income groups of parents to afford seeking copy of answer sheets or re-evaluation, as each answer script is charged at Rs. 1000/- approx. and re-evaluation of each answer is charged at Rs. 500/- approx.
The CPIO rebutted the arguments of the father of the Appellant and stated that each answer sheet is charged at Rs. 500/- while revaluation of each answer is charged at Rs. 100/-.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that concededly there has been a delay in providing the information to the Appellant, however, having heard the submissions of the CPIO, it will not be appropriate to hold the view that the Appellant was prevented from pursuing higher education in her choice of college due to the delay in providing the information to her under the RTI Act.
In other words, the Appellant had ample recourse to the facility of seeking the answer scripts and for revaluation when CBSE had notified the process in the public domain. Pertinently, by the admission of the Appellant, it is not the case that she was not aware of the facility being offered during the 3-5 day's window as referred to by the CPIO during the hearing, rather she explained their unfortunate inability to pay for the fees being charged by CBSE under the extant examination rules. Clearly, this is not a case of obstruction of information under the RTI Act per se but of taking recourse to a cost-effective alternative to access the information, however, whose fate did not turn out in the manner it was desired for by the Appellant.
It will be relevant here to bring the attention of the Appellant to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies &Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg &Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held as under in the context of parallel laws providing for access to information:3
"34. From the above, it appears that the expression ―held by‖ or ―under the control of any public authority‖, in relation to ―information‖, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It cannot mean that information which the public authority has already ―let go‖, i.e. shared generally with the citizens, and also that information, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. This is so, because in respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority ―holds‖ or ―controls‖ the same. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. It is not this kind of information, which appears to fall within the meaning of the expression ―right to information‖, as the information in relation to which the ―right to information‖ is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which "is held by or under the control of any public authority". Emphasis Supplied
35. The mere prescription of a higher charge in the other statutory mechanism (in this case Section 610 of the Companies Act), than that prescribed under the RTI Act does not make any difference whatsoever. The right available to any person to seek inspection/copies of documents under Section 610 of the Companies Act is governed by the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules & Forms, 1956, which are statutory rules and prescribe the fees for inspection of documents, etc. in Rule 21A. The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. It would also be complete waste of public funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC - one under Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure. Emphasis Supplied
36. The right to information is required to be balanced with the need to optimize use of limited fiscal resources. In this context I may refer to the relevant extract of the Preamble to the RTI Act which, inter alia, provides:-
"AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentially of sensitive information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountancy of the democratic ideal;" (emphasis supplied).
37. Section 4(1)(a) also lays emphasis on availability of recourses, when it talks about computerization of the records. Therefore, in the exploitation and implementation of the RTI Act, a delicate and reasonable balance is required to be maintained. Nobody can go overboard or loose ones equilibrium and sway in one direction or assume an extreme 4 position either in favour of upholding the right to information granted by the RTI Act, or to deny the said right.
xxx
39. Therefore, if another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated, and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed."
The above said is not to discredit the cause of the Appellant but to clarify the position that losing the opportunity to seek revaluation of answer sheets at the relevant time cannot be pleaded as a reason to castigate the CPIO or the CBSE in the instant case.
Having observed so, as far as the mandate of the RTI Act is concerned, the action in the matter can be limited to the delay caused in providing the information to the Appellant, i.e failure of the then CPIO to provide the information within 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI Application upon its resubmission with proper fees.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the concerned then CPIO through the present CPIO to send his written explanation to show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for failing to provide the information to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. The written submissions of the concerned then CPIO should reach the Commission along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which he will be liable for imposition of maximum penalty.
The present CPIO shall ensure service of this order to the concerned then CPIO under due intimation to the Commission within 2 days from the receipt of this order.
Further, taking an empathetic view of the concerns raised by the Appellant and her father regarding similarly placed students and parents who perhaps find it difficult to pay the fees prescribed by CBSE for seeking copy of answer sheets and re- evaluations, thus compelling them to take recourse to alternative modes of dissemination of information like the RTI Act, a copy of this order is marked to the Chairman, CBSE and Secretary, Ministry of Education for consideration.
5The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Copy to:
Chairman CBSE Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
--(For looking into the matter) Secretary Ministry of Education C Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Rd, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001
--(For looking into the matter) 6